VANDAN BALI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Quashing of complaint under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 pertaining to dishonour of cheque of Rs.80,000.00 issued by petitioner in terms of Training-cum-Employment Agreement of 19/3/2010, is sought on merits in this petition.

(2.) At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner had placed reliance upon Apex Court's decisions in M/s. Indus Airways Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. M/s. Magnum Aviation Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. IV (2014) SLT 321 and HMT Watches Ltd. v. M.A. Abida and Anr. 2015 SCC Online SC 233 to submit that the cheque in question was issued as security cheque, which does not come within the purview of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2- complainant strongly refutes the contention of petitioner that the cheque in question was a security cheque and submits that the decisions in M/s. Indus Airways (supra) and HMT Watches (supra) have no application to the facts of the instant case. Reliance is placed upon Apex Court's decision in Anil Kumar Sawhney v. Gulshan Rai 1993 (4) SCALE 114 to submit that the cheque in question was admittedly undated and so, it cannot be termed as a post-dated cheque and it remains a bill of exchange only and when the date was put on the cheque in question, there was an existing liability of petitioner as he had left the employment of respondent without any justified reason and so, in terms of the Training- cum-Employment Agreement, respondent-complainant has a right to forfeit the amount of the cheque in question.