Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Debt if legally enforceable – Exercise of power u/s. 482, CrPC – Scope:
Held: Whether the debt in question is a legally enforceable debt or other liability would arise on the facts and circumstance of each case and in that light, the question as to whether the power u/s.482, CrPC is to be exercised or not will also arise in the facts of such case – In the present case, High Court misdirected itself in holding that since the date of issuance of the cheque (2017) is beyond three years from the date of issuance of the promissory note (2012) so it is a time-barred debt – When the respondent had agreed to repay the amount within December, 2016, the cause of action to initiate proceedings to recover the said amount if not paid within December 2016 would arise only in the month of December, 2016 – Thus, the limitation would be as provided under Article 34 to the Schedule in the Limitation Act, 1963 – In respect of a promissory note payable at a fixed time, the period of limitation being three years would begin to run when the fixed time expires – Therefore, the time would begin to run from the month of December, 2016 and the period of limitation would expire at the end of three years thereto i.e. during December, 2019 – Thus, the cheque ANR.
dated 28.04.2017 is well within the period of limitation – Complaint in CC No.681 of 2017 was filed on 11.07.2017, as is the case in all the analogous complaints – Therefore, not only the amount was a legally recoverable debt, the complaint was also filed within time – No occasion to exercise power u/s.482, CrPC to quash the complaint – Order impugned set aside – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Contract Act, 1872 – s.25(3) – Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 34. [Paras 12, 13, 15-17]
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Debt/liability if barred by limitation, to be decided on evidence – Quashing u/s.482, CrPC justified only if debt is non-recoverable:
Held: Whether the debt or liability is barred by limitation is to be decided based on the evidence to be adduced since the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact – It is only in cases wherein an amount which is out and out non-recoverable, towards which a cheque is issued, dishonoured and for recovery of which a criminal action is initiated, the question of threshold jurisdiction will arise – In such cases, the Court exercising jurisdiction u/s.482, CrPC will be justified in interfering but not otherwise – Entertaining a petition u/s.482, CrPC to quash the proceedings at the stage earlier to the evidence would not be justified – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482. [Para 10]
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.139 – Plea that if the cheque is issued in respect of the debt which is not enforceable or a liability which cannot be recovered, in such event, the presumption u/s.139 would not be available:
Held: No need to tread that path to undertake an academic exercise on that aspect of the matter, since on facts ex facie the claim made in the complaint before the Trial Court based on the cheque which was dishonoured cannot be construed as time-barred – Thus, it cannot be classified as a debt which was not legally recoverable – Contract Act, 1872 – s.25(3) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482. [Para 12]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
S. Natarajan v. Sama Dharman, (2021) 6 SCC 413; A.V. Murthy v. B.S. Nagabasavanna, (2002) 2 SCC 642 : [2002] 1 SCR 906 – relied on. Expeditious Trial of Cases u/s 138 of NI Act 1881, (2021) SCC Online SC 325 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.