Delhi Court rejected Woman’s plea, to face trial in cheque bounce case
New Delhi, Feb 20: A Delhi court has dismissed a woman’s complaint against a couple for allegedly stealing and misusing her cheques, saying she was clearly attempting to “wriggle out” of a pending cheque bounce case.
Additional Sessions Judge Vrinda Kumari dismissed her plea, saying she owed the couple money in the form of instalments towards the committees which she was running with them and had a pending cheque bounce case against her.
“The instant complaint case is clearly an attempt by the revisionist/complainant (woman) to wriggle out of a situation where her cheques got dishonoured and she must face trial under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act. The complaint case under section 138 of the NI Act against her is pending,” the judge said.
The woman had lodged a complaint against the couple seeking that they be summoned for the offences of cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy under the IPC.
However, her complaint was dismissed by a magisterial court after which she approached the sessions court, where it again got rejected on various grounds.
The sessions court observed that the woman was a member of committees and had to collectively pay over 10 instalments.
It also noted that in her complaint to the police, she claimed that blank cheques bearing her signatures were stolen from her house and used wrongly for encashment but the cheques bounced due to insufficient funds but in her statement before the court, she said the cheques bounced as her account was closed.
“In the entire complaint as well as in the pre summoning evidence, it has not been explained as to where and in what manner the four cheque books containing blank signed cheques in question were kept and how could the respondents accused have access to that place,” the court said.
“Liability of the revisionist complainant to pay the instalments towards the committees run by respondents accused (couple) and the presentation of the cheques in question for encashment by the respondents is not a coincidence. It is also not a coincidence that all the complaints to the local police station and to the manager of the banks concerned were written after she received the legal notice under the NI Act,” the court added, while dismissing her revision plea.