HMT WATCHES LTD. versus M.A. ABIDA &ANR.

Citation: [2015] 3 S.C.R. 719 · Decided: 19-03-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 3 S.C.R. 719 
HMT WATCHES LTD. 
v. 
M.A. ABIDA &ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 471 of 2015 etc.) 
MARCH 19, 2015 
[DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- s. 482- Jurisdiction 
under -
Scope of -
Criminal proceeding u/s. 138 of C 
Negotiable Instruments Act- Quashed by High Court- Held: 
High court committed grave error by exceeding its jurisdiction 
by quashing the proceeding accepting disputed factual 
defences - Negotiable instruments Act, 1881 - s. 138. 
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - s. 138 - Offence 
under - Dishonor of cheque because of stop-payment 
instruction - Held: Such instruction also would attract the 
offence uls. 138. 
Allowing the appeals, the court 
HELO: 1. The High Court has committed grave error 
D 
E 
of law in quashing the criminal complaints filed by the 
appellant in respect of offence punishable under Section 
F 
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in exercise of 
powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by accepting factual 
defences of the accused which were disputed ones. 
[Para 14] [727-G-H] 
Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Limited v. Rajvir Industries 
Limited and Ors. (2008) 13 SCC 678: 2008 (1) SCR 432; 
Rallis India Limited v. Poduru Vidya Bhushan and Ors. (2011) 
13 sec 88: 2011 (5) SCR 289- relied on. 
719 
G 
H 
720 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015) 3 S.C.R. 
A 
2. The High Court further erred in observing that 
Section 138(b) of Negotiable Instruments Act stood 
uncomplied, even though respondent No.1 (accused) 
had admitted that he replied the notice issued by the 
complainant. Also, the fact, as to whether the signatory 
B of demand notice was authorized by the complainant 
company or not, could not have been examined by the 
High Court in its jurisdiction u/s. 482 Crl.P.C. when such 
plea was controverted by the complainant before it. [Para 
C 10) [725-D-E] 
3. 
Instruction of "stop payment" issued to the 
banker could be sufficient to make the accused liable 
for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the 
0 
Negotiable Instruments Act. [Para 13) [727-E] 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Pulsive Technologies P. Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat (2014) 
9 SCALE 437; Modi Cements Ltd. vs. Kuchil Kumar Nandi 
(1998) 3 sec 249: 1998 (1) SCR 1192- relied on. 
CASE LAW REFERENCE 
2008 (1) SCR 432 
relied on 
2011 (5) SCR 289 
relied on 
(2014) 9 SCALE 437 relied on 
1998 (1) SCR 1192 
relied on 
Para 11 
Para 12 
Para 13 
Para 13 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 471 of2015. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.02.2014 of the 
High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in CRLMC No. 2367 of 
2008. 
WITH 
H MT WATCHES LTD. v. M.A.ABIDA 
721 
Criminal Appeal No. 472 of2015 
A 
Liz Mathew, M.F. Philip, Malavika Prasad, C.V. Francis, 
Arun Francis, Sindhu Mohan, Mukti Chowdhary, Swati Setia 
for the Appellant. 
B 
Basant R., Romy Chacko for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court wa!ii delivered by 
PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1. These appeals are directed C 
against judgment and order dated 25.2.2014 passed by the 
High Court of Kerala in Criminal M.C. No 2366 of 2008 and 
Criminal M.C. No. 2367 of 2008, whereby the said Court has 
allowed the petitions and quashed the proceedings of crirltinal 0 
complaint case Nos. 1790, 1791, 1792, 1793, 1794, 1795, 
1796, 1824, 1825, 1826, 1827, 1828, 1829, 1830 and 1831 
of 2007 pending in the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate 
(Court No. IV), Kechi; and C.C. Nos.1208, 1209, 1210,1211 
and 1212 of2007, pending in the Court of Judicial First Class E 
Magistrate (Court No. Ill), Kechi. All these criminal complaint 
cases were pertaining to offence punishable under Section 
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter 
referred to as "the N. I. Act"). 
F 
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and 
perused the papers on record. 
3. Succinctly stated, the appellant filed criminal complaint 
cases against respondent- M.A. Abida stating that as many G 
as 57 cheques dated 28.09.2006 were issued by her in 
discharge of outstanding liability towards the complainant/ 
appellant (HMT Watches Ltd.). When the cheques were 
presented for collection the same were received back, 
dishonoured by bankers with the endorsement - "payment H 
722 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
stopped by the drawer". Notice of demand dated 9.10.2006 
was issued by the complainant to the respondent no.1 but she 
failed to make the payment of the amount mentioned in the 
cheques, i.e., total Rs.1,79,86,357/-. Instead, she se
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.