- Case
- REKHA SHARAD USHIR v. SAPTASHRUNGI MAHILA NAGARI SAHKARI PATSANSTA LTD. (Supreme Court of India, 26-03-2025)
- Law
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Code of Criminal Procedure, Negotiable Instruments Act.
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: The judgment discusses Section 138 of the NI Act, which deals with the dishonour of a cheque for insufficiency of funds. The court reproduces the text of Section 138, including the explanation of "debt or other liability". The judgment also mentions Section 139 of the NI Act, stating that there is a presumption in favour of the cheque holder, and it shall be presumed that the respondent received the cheque for the discharge of debt by the appellant. This presumption can only be rebutted by adducing evidence during the trial. The judgment also notes that Section 138 has three conditions incorporated in clauses (a) to (c) of the proviso, relating to the presentation of the cheque, demand for payment, and failure of the drawer to make payment. The judgment also notes that in the notice under Section 138 of the NI Act, in paragraph 1, the respondent specifically relied upon documents executed by the appellant and the acknowledgment of the loan made by the appellant. The court finds that the respondent suppressed material letters related to the demand for documents by the appellant.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: The judgment discusses Section 200 of the CrPC, stating that a court of the Judicial Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act based on a complaint filed under Section 200 of the CrPC. The judgment states that after a complaint is filed under Section 200 of the CrPC, the learned Magistrate is duty-bound to examine the complainant on oath and witnesses, if any, present and reduce the substance of such examination into writing. The judgment emphasizes that recording the complainant's statement on oath under Section 200 of the CrPC is not an empty formality. The judgment also discusses Section 204(1) of the CrPC, stating that if the learned Magistrate is satisfied that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused, then the learned Magistrate has to issue a process in terms of sub-Section (1) of Section 204 of the CrPC. The judgment also discusses Section 203 of CrPC, stating that the learned Magistrate could have dismissed the complaint by exercising power under Section 203 of CrPC, as the appellant could not have replied to the statutory notice without looking at the documents relied upon. The judgment notes that the documents as demanded were not pleaded in the complaint and statement under Section 200 of CrPC.
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: The judgment mentions that the corresponding provision to Section 200 of the CrPC under the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is Section 223. The corresponding provision under the BNSS to Section 204 of the CrPC is Section 227.
General Principles of Law: The judgment discusses the principle that a litigant who suppresses material facts or makes a false statement cannot seek justice from the court. It cites the case of *S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath & Ors.*, emphasizing that one who comes to the court must come with clean hands. The court states, "We have no hesitation to say that a person, who's case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation." The judgment emphasizes that setting criminal law in motion by suppressing material facts and documents is an abuse of the process of law.
