Mannulal vs Deendayal

A.K. Shrivastava, J.—This is an application u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of the complaint registered against the applicant u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short the ''Act of 1881''). Learned counsel for the applicant by inviting my attention to the statement which he made in the police has submitted that on account of pressurizing the applicant the police officers procured the cheque of Rs. 1,80,000/- although on that date only Rs. 559/- were in balance in his bank account. Hence it has been submitted that by allowing this application u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. the proceedings registered u/s 138 of the Act of 1881 filed by respondent before JMFC, Gadarwara District Narsinghpur be quashed.

On the other hand, Shri Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that all these averments which the applicant has made are disputed questions of the facts and at the threshold the complaint cannot be dismissed merely on this ground, since it is a matter of enquiry and evidence is required.

Whatever the submission has been made by learned counsel for the applicant may be his defence and, therefore he may take that defence, if so advised, during the cross-examination of the complainant. The applicant shall also be free to summon the case diary etc. from the concerning police station and may examine the relevant witnesses of the police station in order to prove his probable defence. At this juncture I would like to mention that the standard of proof of defence cannot be equated with that of prosecution where the prosecution has to prove its case beyond all possible doubts. However, if the defence is found to be probable on the basis of preponderance, it may be considered by the court at the time of passing of the judgment and the same yardstick which is applicable for the prosecution should not be applied. With the aforesaid observations, this application u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. is disposed of.