Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

petition were denied on merits. It was asserted that the cheque was not made invalid but only the processing of CTS cheques was limited to particular days. RBI directed all the banks to withdraw non-CTS cheques in circulation to replace them with CTS 2010 of standard cheques on 03.09.2012. RBI issued a notification dated 18.03.2013, stating that all residual non-CTS cheques with rt customers would continue to be valid and accepted for some more period. Non-CTS cheques have not become invalid and the number of days were reduced for their processing. The non-CTS cheques were discontinued w.e.f. December 31, 2018. The banks have been advised to withdraw all non-CTS cheques from customers; however, they remain valid as negotiable instruments. The plea that a valid cheque was not presented is not acceptable; thus, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

8. Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Reserve Bank of India has withdrawn all the of non-CTS cheques vide notification (Annexure P-4), therefore, an invalid cheque was presented by the complainant. No legal rt liability exists and learned Trial Court erred in summoning the accused. The continuation of the proceedings before the learned Trial Court will be an abuse of the process of the Court as no conviction can be recorded because of the notification of the Reserve Bank of India. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the summoning order and the complaint be quashed.

instrument and that the days for its processing have been reduced by the Reserve Bank of India. The plea taken by the petitioner that an invalid cheque was presented is incorrect.

Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

of

11. I have given considerable thought to the submissions at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

12. rt The principles of exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. were laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Supriya Jain v. State of Haryana, (2023) 7 SCC 711: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 765 wherein it was observed at page 716:-

7. Hence, the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is liable to discharge is untenable and the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner are liable to be rejected. This Court finds there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Mettur and the same does not warrant any interference by this Court."

19. Hence, the plea that the complaint is based on an invalid cheque, which could not have been presented is not acceptable because the cheque was not dishonoured on the ground that it was a non-CTS cheque and could not have been honoured in violation of the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India. It was dishonoured with the endorsement 'funds insufficient' as per Para 3 of the complaint. Therefore, the complaint cannot be quashed at this stage.