Puneet Bhasin vs Khanna Traders And Engineers

Headnote AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved

The petitioners challenged an order dated 22.02.2024 passed by the Revision Court in Criminal Revision No. 160/2022, which had dismissed their revision petitions seeking setting aside of the order dated 20.06.2019 whereby processes and summons were issued against them under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in a cheque dishonour complaint. The petitioners contended that the dishonoured cheque was issued by their deceased mother's erstwhile manager, Pradip Kumar, without authorisation and after the death of the sole proprietress, and that the petitioners were neither signatories to the cheque nor in-charge of the day-to-day affairs of the proprietorship concern or the unregistered partnership firm.

It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate had mechanically issued process and summons without appreciating that the basic ingredients of an offence under Sections 138 and 141 of the NI Act were not made out against the petitioners, as they had no enforceable debt against them and the bills raised by the respondent were fictitious. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's decision in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749, to the effect that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and the Magistrate must apply his mind to the facts and applicable law before issuing summons.

The exemption applications filed in both petitions were allowed subject to all just exceptions and disposed of. The stay applications in both petitions were taken up along with the main petitions for consideration by the High Court.

Catchwords: Negotiable Instruments Act · cheque dishonour · Section 138 · Section 141 · Section 482 CrPC · summoning of accused · sole proprietorship · unregistered partnership firm · legal heirs · in-charge of business · application of mind by Magistrate · revision · stay