Chhote Lal Aggarwal vs State of Punjab

Pritpal Singh, J.

A First Information Report No. 17 dated March 7, 1986, under sections 406 and 420, Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station, Mohali, district Ropar, against the petitioner is sought to be quashed by the latter.

In the impugned First Information Report (Annexure P.5) it is alleged that the petitioner, who is Managing Director of Brijesh Natural Fibre and Fabrics Private Limited, Bombay purchased silk yarn from the complaint company known as Punjab Shoddy Spinners Limited, on various occasions. The complainant issued two bills in this respect The first on February 2, 1935 for, Rs. 1,35,504 51 P. and the second for Rs. 2,56,961.45 on March 8, 1985. On receipt of these bills the petitioner issued three cheques : the first dated April 18, 1985. the second dated April 30, 1985 and the third dated May 8, 1985 towards these bills. However, the cheques were dishonoured. The complaint not the petitioner to persuade him to make the payment of the bills but did no succeed.

The contention on behalf of the petition is that the allegation made in the First Information Report are false but ever assuming them to the true no criminal offence is made out as it is a dispute of purely civil nature in my view this contention is not devoid of force.

In Jawahar Lal Bansal v. Mohinder Singh and another, 1980 P.L.R. 116. it was observed by this Court that a distinction will have to be drawn between a case where a postdated cheque is issued in order to discharge an existing liability and a case where it is issued against delivery of goods with an assurance that it will be encashed when presented to the bank. In the first case it would amount only to a breach of promise if the cheque is not encashed but in the second case it may be prima facie evidence of an intention to cheat. Similar view was taken by the Delhi High Court in Bhola Nath Arora and another v. The State, 1982 Cri.L.J. 1482. It was held that the drawing up of a cheque does not imply any representation that the drawer has money in the Bank to the amount shown in the cheque and, so the mere fact that the cheque is dishonoured may not in itself give rise to a criminal offence. However. the position is different where the property is purchased by the accused and the price is paid by cheques. In such a case there is an implied representation that the cheque should be encashed on presentation, to the Bank. Consistent view of this Court has been that unless the delivery of the goods had been made against a cheque then due to the dishonouring of the same, which was issued for an existing liability no criminal offence is made cut. In Prem Chand & ors. v. State of Punjab, 1979 C.L.R. (Pb. & Har) 269, the property had already been parted with when a post dated cheque was issued in favour of the complainant. This cheque when presented to the Bank was dishonoured and consequently a First Information Report was registered against the accused under section 420, Indian Penal Code. It was held that in such circumstances the issuing of the cheque was a mere Promise to pay and when this premise was broken it did not amount to a criminal offence and it was deemeu to be civil matter. Similarly in Dinesh Saha v. Sat Narain Kukara 1979 P.L.R. 331 in such circumstances, it was held that it was an ordinary business transaction in respect of which payment was to be made by the accused subsequent to the delivery. The time that intervened between the delivery and the issuing, of the cheque indicated that the payment was not to be made at the time of the delivery of the goods and in such circumstances the dishounring of the cheque amounted to a civil liability and not a criminal offence under section 420, Indian Penal Code.

In the present case in the First Information Report itself it has been alleged that the complainant had supplied goods to the petitioner on various occasions and only thereafter two bills were sent to the petitioner who, to discharge this existing liability, subsequently issued three cheques which were dishonoured on presentation to the Bank. It is clearly indicated from the circumstances that the cheques were not issued against the delivery of goods but were drawn in order to discharge a preexisting liability. The dishonouring of the cheques, therefore amounted only to breach of promise which is a civil liability and not criminal offence under section 420 Indian Penal Code.

In this view of the matter the impugned First Information Report (Annexure P. 5) and the proceedings taken in pursuance thereof in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Kharar, summoning the petitioner are hereby quashed.