Supreme Court

Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan vs. The State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi

MANU/SC/0542/2022

26.04.2022

Criminal

When the proceedings are at a nascent stage, scuttling of the criminal process is not merited

The challenge in present appeals is to the judgment and order whereby the Delhi High Court dismissed the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) for quashing of the summoning order and the order framing notice issued against the Appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ( ‘N.I. Act’).

The issue to be answered here is whether summons and trial notice should have been quashed on the basis of factual defences.

The legal presumption of the cheque having been issued in the discharge of liability must also receive due weightage. In a situation where the accused moves Court for quashing even before trial has commenced, the Court’s approach should be careful enough to not to prematurely extinguish the case by disregarding the legal presumption which supports the complaint.

The Court should be slow to grant the relief of quashing a complaint at a pre-trial stage, when the factual controversy is in the realm of possibility particularly because of the legal presumption, as in present matter. The factual defence, without having to adduce any evidence, need to be of an unimpeachable quality to altogether disprove the allegations made in the complaint.

The consequences of scuttling the criminal process at a pre-trial stage can be grave and irreparable. Quashing proceedings at preliminary stages will result in finality without the parties having had an opportunity to adduce evidence. Also because of the legal presumption, when the cheque and the signature are not disputed by the appellant, the balance of convenience at this stage is in favour of the complainant/prosecution, as the accused will have due opportunity to adduce defence evidence during the trial, to rebut the presumption.

When the proceedings are at a nascent stage, scuttling of the criminal process is not merited. The impugned judgment is rendered by applying the correct legal principles and the High Court rightly declined relief to the accused, in the quashing proceeding. Appeals dismissed.

Tags : Summoning order Quashing Grant

Share :