HARVINDER KAUR Vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Case is taken up for hearing through video conferencing.

(2.) Through the present petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of complaint under Sec. 138 read with Ss. 141 and 142 of the N.I. Act, filed by the complainant-respondent and pending before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh; summoning order dtd. 9/12/2020 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaint in question was filed on 5/2/2020, whereas the resolution to file the present complaint was passed on 10/1/2019, but the said resolution does not contain any averment as regards the authorised person having witnessed the transaction or possessing due knowledge about the transaction. It is further submitted that legal notice was issued on 6/1/2020, whereas the complaint was filed on 5/2/2020; that the cheques in question were given by the petitioner to the respondent as security for taking a loan of Rs.22,50,000.00; that it is settled law that no complaint under Sec. 138 of the Act, is maintainable, qua security cheques and that the petitioner has already repaid a total sum of Rs.24,49,530.00, but the respondent- complainant has wrongly shown the balance amount as Rs.3,86,458.00. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already obtained an order from the Civil Court at Paunta Sahib, restraining the respondent-complainant from taking forcible possession of the vehicle in question; that it is settled law that when taking of the forcible possession of the loaned vehicle has been stayed, the Bank/financial institution, may initiate appropriate proceedings, but in no case, can it initiate the proceedings under Sec. 138 of the Act.