Scope of Interference by High Court in case of Cheque Dishonour under S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Scope of Interference by High Court in case of Cheque Dishonour under S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Challenge to summons issued by Magistrate - Offence by Companies - Time of issuance of cheque - DIR-11 and impact on prosecution of Director - Resignation by Director - Scope of S.482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Inherent Powers of High Court - "Abuse of the process of the court" - Effect of filing revision petition before Sessions Court - Simultaneous remedies to challenge the findings of Magistrate - Multiple remedies challenging order of Magistrate - Cases after Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2018 - Signatory of the cheque

In case of Reena Singh v. Bhumi Sagar Infrastructure Pvt Ltd [2023] GCtR 1216 (Delhi), accused was issued summons by Magistrate which was challenged before High Court. Petition was filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the summoning order dated 21.10.2019 whereby the petitioner has been summoned for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. This case also arose after the NI (Amendment) Act, 2018 since cheque in this case was issued on 20 September 2019. 

Accused argued that the cheque in this case was issued on 20.09.2019. The petitioner was neither the signatory nor was the Director at the time of issuance of cheque. Accused submitted that the petitioner had resigned from the company on 18.09.2019. In this regard, accused has also placed on record Form No.DIR-11.

During the course of submissions, accused submitted that he had also moved an application for discharge which was dismissed by learned M.M. as having no jurisdiction to review or recall its order. Accused submitted that against the dismissal of application for discharge, he moved a revision petition bearing no.89/2022, which is pending before the learned Sessions Court and was now fixed for 10.04.2023.

Accused argued that the present petition before HC was filed after filing of revision petition. Accused argued submits that there is no bar on filing the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the revisional power under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot affect the inherent power of the High Court.

High Court held that there is no quarrel with the proposition that the petitioner could have filed petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 but the fact is that first he preferred revision petition and during the pendency of the revision petition, he filed a petitioner under Section 482 of Code, 1973 before HC.  

In any way, whether the revision petition has been filed before filing of this petition or thereafter, it amounts to abuse of the process of law. Accused has invoked the jurisdiction of the sessions court as well as High court, asking the same relief. This conduct is totally deprecated and amounts to abuse of the process of court.