Aftab Khan vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Ashish Naithani, J

The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant seeking to quash the impugned order dated 17.11.2014 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, whereby the revision filed by the complainant was allowed, setting aside the discharge order of the applicant and directing a retrial of the matter.

The facts, in brief, are that the applicant was facing trial in Case Crime No./FIR No. 328 of 2011, registered under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act at Police Station Kotwali Ranipur, District Haridwar. The trial court, after considering the alleged payment of the cheque amount with interest, discharged the accused. The complainant preferred a criminal revision before the Sessions Court, contending that the discharge was against the settled principles of law. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision and remanded the matter for a fresh trial.

The applicant challenges the said order primarily on the ground that the revision was not maintainable, and the trial court had rightly accepted the payment and discharged him from further liability. It is argued that the impugned order is legally unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the order passed by the Sessions Court is legally justified, as the trial court erred in accepting a payment made after dishonor of the cheque without following the legal procedure mandated under the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is contended that once a cheque is dishonored, proceedings under the Act must be conducted strictly in accordance with law, and settlement at a later stage does not automatically absolve the accused from criminal liability.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records, this Court finds that the impugned order is legally sustainable for the following reasons:

a) Maintainability of Revision: The Sessions Court rightly entertained the revision since the discharge order was passed without properly considering whether the complainant had accepted the payment unconditionally or whether legal procedures were adhered to.

b) Procedural Compliance: The Negotiable Instruments Act prescribes a specific legal framework for cheque dishonor cases, and mere payment after dishonor does not nullify the offense. The trial court’s discharge order bypassed these procedural safeguards, warranting intervention by the Sessions Court.

c) Fair Adjudication: The complainant was deprived of the opportunity to contest the matter, as the trial court unilaterally accepted the payment and discharged the accused. The Sessions Court’s order ensures that both parties have a fair opportunity to present their case.

d) Jurisdictional Validity: The Sessions Court exercised its revisional jurisdiction correctly, as the trial court’s order suffered from material irregularities, which justified interference to uphold the principles of justice.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present application. The impugned order dated 17.11.2014 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, is upheld.

The present Criminal Misc. Application is dismissed. The trial court is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law and ensure that the case is decided on its merits after granting both parties a fair opportunity to be heard.