# Hemlata & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 6 ILRA 127
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-02-20
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 6974 of 2020
- **Bench:** Sanjay Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/hemlata-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45767
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal procedure Code (2
of 1974) - Section 482 - Indian Penal
Code (45 of 1860)- Section 323- Section
328 - Section 376 - Section 120B -
Quashing of proceedings - Compromise in
Sexual Offence - Impermissible - Sexual
offences constitute an altogether different class
of crime which is the result of a perverse mind -
these crimes cannot be treated at par with
matrimonial offence - Allowing quashing of
charge-sheet, pursuant to a compromise, will, in
such cases, only embolden the perpetrators of
such
crimes
&
would
only
encourage
commission of such offences, as the accused,
using his money power or otherwise, may be
able to induce the prosecutrix/victim to enter in
to settlement with him and then seek quashing
of criminal proceedings, on the strength of that
settlement. (Para 14)

Application dismissed (E-5)

List of case cited :

1.St. of M.P. Vs Yogendra Singh Jadon & anr
passed in Cri. Appeal No. 175 of 2020 dt
31.01.2020

## Text

6 All. Hemlata & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
127
Singh' s case (supra) or provisions of
Section 2 (d) of Cr.P.C., the impugned
order of cognizance dated 21.10.2019
passed upon submission of charge-sheet
under Sections 323 and 506 of IPC is
perfectly valid and no abuse of process of
law is evident or apparent from the
impugned order. It does not require the
exercise of inherent power by this Court for
securing
the
ends
of
justice.
The
application is devoid of merits and is liable
to be dismissed.

16. The application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is dismissed accordingly.

17. However, if the applicant appears
before the Court below and moves
application for bail, the same shall be
disposed of expeditiously, in accordance
with law.
----------
(2020)06ILR A127
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.02.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 6974 of 2020

Hemlata & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Swati Agarwal Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal procedure Code (2
of 1974) - Section 482 - Indian Penal
Code (45 of 1860)- Section 323- Section
328 - Section 376 - Section 120B -
Quashing of proceedings - Compromise in
Sexual Offence - Impermissible - Sexual
offences constitute an altogether different class
of crime which is the result of a perverse mind -
these crimes cannot be treated at par with
matrimonial offence - Allowing quashing of
charge-sheet, pursuant to a compromise, will, in
such cases, only embolden the perpetrators of
such
crimes
&
would
only
encourage
commission of such offences, as the accused,
using his money power or otherwise, may be
able to induce the prosecutrix/victim to enter in
to settlement with him and then seek quashing
of criminal proceedings, on the strength of that
settlement. (Para 14)

Application dismissed (E-5)

List of case cited :

1.St. of M.P. Vs Yogendra Singh Jadon & anr
passed in Cri. Appeal No. 175 of 2020 dt
31.01.2020

2. Rajeev Kourav Vs Baisahab & ors. Cri. Appeal
No. 232 of 2020 dt 11.02.2020

3.St. of M.P. Vs Laxmi Narayan & ors. AIR
(2019) SC 1296

4.ParbatbhaiAahir Vs St. of Gujarat (2017) 9
SCC 641

5.Ramphal Vs St. of Har. AIR Online (2019) SC
1716

6.Arun Singh & ors. Vs St. of U.P. through its
Secretary & anr. Cri. Appeal No. 250 of 2020 dt
10.02.2020

7.Bodhi Sattwa Gautam Vs Subhra Chakraborty
AIR (1996) SC 922

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar
Singh, J.)

1. Heard Mrs. Swati Agrawal
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
applicants, Sri Rabindra Kumar Singh,
learned Additional Government Advocate
assisted by Sri Prashant Kumar Singh,
learned Brief Holder for the State/opposite
128 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
party no.1 and perused the record with the
assistance of learned counsel for the
parties.

2. This application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to
quash the entire proceedings of case no. 10
of 2020 (State Vs. Ram Milan @ Pintu and
others) arising out of case crime no. 301 of
2019, under Sections 323, 328, 376, 120B
IPC, Police Station Pipari, District -
Kaushambi pending in the court of learned
Magistrate, Kaushambi.

3. In short compass, the facts of this
case
are
that
FIR
of
the
prosecutrix/opposite
party
no.2
was
registered on 30.07.2019 through an
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
dated 24.06.2019 with regard to alleged
incident
dated
21.12.2016
making
allegation inter-alia that her father was
admitted in P.G.I., Lucknow. She along
with her husband (applicant no.2) had gone
to see and take care of him on 21.12.2016.
On returning in the night at about 9.00
P.M., her husband took her in the house of
applicant no.3, where she was stayed in the
night. Accused persons fed her at night
mixing alcoholic substance in the food, due
to which she fell asleep. Next day in the
morning when she wake up, she found her
in naked condition and accused-applicants
were found standing there. It is further
alleged that on raising objection by her, she
was shown a video by the applicants and
threatened
that
if
she
will disclose
anything, the said video will be uploaded
on Whatsapp, Facebook and it will be given
to all news channels. It is also alleged that
she was afraid and applicant no.3 (Ram
Bahadur) used to commit rape upon her in
collusion with applicant nos. 1 and 2,
because her husband (applicant no.2) was
having illicit relation with applicant no.1
(wife of applicant no.3/Ram Bahadur). It is
also alleged that on 25.05.2019, when she
was alone in her house, the applicants
along with unknown persons came there
and insisted her to have sex with that
unknown persons. On making resistance,
she was beaten by them and thereafter on
26.05.2019 she went to her Maika saving
her life and told her mother what had
happened with her. It is also mentioned that
on 3.6.2019 information about the said
incident was given by prosecutrix/opposite
party no.2 personally to Superintendent of
Police, Kaushambi as well as other officers,
sending her application by registered post,
but no action was taken. Thereafter, she
moved an application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate concerned
seeking
direction
to
get
her
First
Information Report registered. During
investigation,
statement
of
victim/prosecutrix
under
Section
161
Cr.P.C. was recorded on 1.8.2019 and
statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was
recorded on 13.08.2019, in which she has
reiterated her version as mentioned in the
FIR. X-ray of the prosecutrix was done on
8.8.2019 and as per radiological report, age
of the prosecutrix was found 20-25 years.
Investigating Officer, after investigation
submitted charge-sheet dated 11.01.2020
against applicant nos. 1 and 2 under
Sections 323, 328, 120B IPC and against
applicant no.3 under Sections 323, 328,
376, 120B IPC.

4. On the aforesaid fact, it is
submitted by learned counsel for the
applicants that applicant no.1 is cousin
sister-in-law (Jethani), applicant no.2 is
husband and applicant no.3 is cousin
brother-in-law
(Jeith)
of
the
prosecutrix/opposite party no.2. There is a
family dispute between the applicant no.2
and
opposite
party
no.2,
therefore,
6 All. Hemlata & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
129
applicants have been falsely implicated in
this case. There are major contradiction in
the version of FIR, statements under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. of the
victim/prosecutrix.
Statement
under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. of victim was recorded
on 13.08.2019, in which she has stated that
since last four months she is living in her
Maika. Giving much emphasis on the said
averment, it is submitted by learned
counsel for the applicants that meaning
thereby since April, 2019 she was living in
her parental house (Maika), but in the FIR
she has shown one of the incident dated
25.05.2019 and also mentioned that she
went to her Maika on 26.05.2019. As such,
one of the date of incident is not
corroborated from the statement of victim.
It is also submitted that since the opposite
party no.2 has no brother and she has three
sisters, therefore, opposite party no.2 and
her parents were insisting applicant no.2
(husband of victim) to live in in-law's
house, but on refusal of the said proposal of
opposite party no.2 by the applicant no.2,
the dispute arose between them. It is also
submitted that so far as allegation of
making video is concerned, there is no
alleged video clipping is on record in this
case,
while
charge-sheet
has
been
submitted in the present case. It is further
submitted that though the allegations have
been levelled against the applicants, but
there is no corroborative evidence on
record in support thereof. It is next
submitted that in the medical examination
report dated 7.8.2019 of victim, no external
or internal injury has been found. It is
further submitted that applicants, namely,
Hemlata, Ram Milan @ Pintu and Ram
Bahadur have already been granted bail
vide orders dated 6.1.2020, 17.1.2020 and
20.12.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application Nos. 56539 of 2019, 2698 of
2020 and 57610 of 2019 respectively by the
co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The
prosecution story as set up by opposite
party no.2 in order to settle her personal
score is not liable to be believed and
criminal proceedings in this case against
the applicants is nothing but abuse of the
process of the Court, therefore, same is
liable to be quashed. Lastly, it is submitted
that in case this Court is not inclined to
quash the proceedings, then this matter may
be referred to mediation and conciliation
center of this Court, because applicants are
also willing to settle the issue by way of
compromise/mediation.

5. Per contra, learned Additional
Government Advocate for the State of U.P.
refuting the submissions advanced on
behalf of the applicants submitted that upon
perusal of First Information Report and on
the basis of the allegations made therein as
well as material evidence against the
accused-applicants, as per prosecution case,
the
cognizable
offence
against
the
applicants is made out. The criminal
proceedings against the applicants cannot
be said to be abuse of the process of the
Court. Hence, this application is liable to be
dismissed. It is also pointed out that in the
present application charge-sheet dated
11.01.2020 filed against the accusedapplicants
has
not
been
challenged,
therefore, prayer of the applicants to quash
the entire criminal proceedings of the case,
without challenging the charge-sheet filed
against them, is not maintainable.

6. After having heard the submissions
of the learned counsel for the parties and
perusing the entire record, I find that there
is specific allegation of committing rape
upon the victim/opposite party no.2 against
applicant
no.3
(Ram
Bahadur).
The
connivance and involvement of applicant
nos. 1 and 2 in the aforesaid incident has
130 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
also
been
mentioned
in
the
First
Information Report showing the motive
against the applicants mentioning that since
her husband (applicant no.2) is having
illicit relation with applicant no.1 (wife of
applicant no.3), therefore, applicant nos. 1
and 2 in lieu thereof were insisting the
victim to establish physical relationship
with applicant no.3 (Ram Bahadur). I also
find that in this case, allegation of wife
swapping has been levelled by the
victim/opposite party no.2 against the
accused-applicants.
Victim
in
her
statements under Section 161 and 164
Cr.P.C. have supported the prosecution case
reiterating the main allegations against the
accused-applicants. At the time of medical
examination
of
victim,
the
doctor
concerned
has
also
noted
the
brief
description of the incident as narrated by
the victim, in which also, victim has made
similar allegation against the applicants.
Though, it is submitted from the side of
accused-applicants that it is a family
dispute, but no documentary evidence has
been brought on record alongwith this
application except oral submissions made
on behalf of the applicants. The grounds
taken in the application reveal that many of
them relate to disputed question of fact.
This Court is of the view that it is well
settled that the appreciation of evidence is a
function of the trial court. This Court in
exercise of power under Section 482
Cr.P.C. cannot assume such jurisdiction and
put to an end to the process of trial
provided under the law. It is also settled by
the Apex Court in catena of judgments that
the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at pretrial stage should not be used in a routine
manner but it has to be used sparingly, only
in such an appropriate cases, where it
manifestly appears that there is a legal bar
against the institution or continuance of the
criminal proceedings or where allegations
made in First Information Report or chargesheet and the materials relied in support of
same, on taking their face value and
accepting in their entirety, do not disclose
the commission of any offence against the
accused. The disputed questions of facts
and defence of the accused cannot be taken
into consideration at this pre-trial stage.
Factual submissions and defence as raised
in
the
application
can
be
more
appropriately gone into by the trial court at
the appropriate stage. The applicants have
an alternative statutory remedy of moving
discharge application at the appropriate
stage.

7. The Apex Court in the case of Md.
Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar
and others 2019 (6) SCC 107 has laid
down the jurisdiction of High Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. The observation made
by the Apex Court in paragraph No.17 is
reproduced herein below:

"In our view, the High Court had
no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence
of the proceedings under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for
short "Cr.P.C.") because whether there are
contradictions or/and inconsistencies in the
statements of the witnesses is essentially an
issue relating to appreciation of evidence
and the same can be gone into by the
Judicial Magistrate during trial when the
entire evidence is adduced by the parties.
That stage is yet to come in this case."

8. The Apex Court on 31.01.2020 in
the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.
Yogendra Singh Jadon and another
passed in Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 2020
has held that 'power under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be
exercised where the allegations are required
to be proved in court of law'.
6 All. Hemlata & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
131

9. Recently on 11.02.2020, the Apex
Court in case of Rajeev Kourav Vs.
Baisahab and others passed in Criminal
Appeal No. 232 of 2020 (arising out of
S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1174 of 2017) has held
that quashing the criminal proceedings by
the High Court on the basis of its
assessment of the statements recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is not proper.
The relevant paragraph nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11
of the aforesaid judgment are as under:-

"8. We do not agree with the
submissions made on behalf of Respondent
Nos.1 to 3. The conclusion of the High
Court to quash the criminal proceedings is
on the basis of its assessment of the
statements recorded under Section 161
CrPC. Statements of witnesses recorded
under Section 161 CrPC being wholly
inadmissible in evidence cannot be taken
into consideration by the Court, while
adjudicating a petition filed under Section
482 Cr.P.C.

9. Moreover, the High Court was
aware that one of the witnesses mentioned
that the deceased informed him about the
harassment meted out by Respondent Nos.1
to 3 which she was not able to bear and
hence wanted to commit suicide. The High
Court committed an error in quashing
criminal proceedings by assessing the
statements under Section 161 Cr. P.C.

10. We have not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the matter. The
High Court ought not to have quashed the
proceedings at this stage, scuttling a fullfledged trial in which Respondent Nos.1 to
3 would have a fair opportunity to prove
their innocence.

11.
For
the
aforementioned
reasons, the judgment of the High Court is
set aside and the Appeal is allowed."

10. So far as submission of learned
counsel
for
the
applicants
that
the
applicants are willing to settle the issue by
way
of
compromise/settlement
is
concerned, it is relevant to mention that
Three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in
the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh
Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others AIR 2019
SC 1296 considering the guideline laid
down by the Apex Court in case of
Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat
(2017) 9 SCC 641 has ruled that the
criminal proceedings for the offence of
"rape" cannot be quashed merely on the
basis of compromise made between the
victim and offender. The guideline laid
down by the Apex Court in paragraph 13 of
the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"13. Considering the law on the
point and the other decisions of this Court
on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is
observed and held as under:

i) that the power conferred under
Section 482 of the Code to quash the
criminal
proceedings
for
the
noncompoundable offences under Section 320
of the Code can be exercised having
overwhelmingly and predominantly the
civil character, particularly those arising
out of commercial transactions or arising
out of matrimonial relationship or family
disputes and when the parties have
resolved
the
entire
dispute
amongst
themselves;

ii) such power is not to be
exercised in those prosecutions which
involved heinous and serious offences of
mental depravity or offences like murder,
rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not
private in nature and have a serious impact
on society;

iii) similarly, such power is not to
be exercised for the offences under the
132 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
special
statutes
like
Prevention
of
Corruption Act or the offences committed
by public servants while working in that
capacity are not to be quashed merely on
the basis of compromise between the victim
and the offender;

iv) offences under Section 307
IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the
category of heinous and serious offences
and therefore are to be treated as crime
against the society and not against the
individual
alone,
and
therefore,
the
criminal proceedings for the offence under
Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc.,
which have a serious impact on the society
cannot be quashed in exercise of powers
under Section 482 of the Code, on the
ground that the parties have resolved their
entire
dispute
amongst
themselves.
However, the High Court would not rest its
decision merely because there is a mention
of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge
is framed under this provision. It would be
open to the High Court to examine as to
whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC
is there for the sake of it or the prosecution
has collected sufficient evidence, which if
proved, would lead to framing the charge
under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it
would be open to the High Court to go by
the nature of injury sustained, whether such
injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts
of the body, nature of weapons used etc.
However, such an exercise by the High
Court would be permissible only after the
evidence is collected after investigation and
the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed
and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not
permissible when the matter is still under
investigation.
Therefore,
the
ultimate
conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of
the decision of this Court in the case of
Narinder Singh (supra) should be read
harmoniously and to be read as a whole
and
in
the
circumstances
stated
hereinabove;

v) while exercising the power
under Section 482 of the Code to quash the
criminal proceedings in respect of noncompoundable offences, which are private
in nature and do not have a serious impart
on society, on the ground that there is a
settlement/compromise between the victim
and the offender, the High Court is required
to consider the antecedents of the accused;
the conduct of the accused, namely,
whether the accused was absconding and
why he was absconding, how he had
managed with the complainant to enter into
a compromise etc."

11. Here it is also apposite to mention
that in case of Ramphal Vs. State of
Haryana AIR Online 2019 SC 1716 it was
brought to the notice of the Apex Court that
during pendency of appeal, the appellants,
who have been convicted by the trial court,
have paid Rs. 1.5 lakhs each in favour of
the prosecutrix and she has accepted the
same willingly for getting the matter
compromised. On the said fact, the Apex
Court has observed that "it is imperative to
emphasis that we do not accept such
compromise in matters relating to offence
of rape and similar cases of sexual assault".

12. Apex Court on 10.02.2020 in case
of Arun Singh and others Vs. State of
U.P. through its Secretary and another
passed in Criminal Appeal No. 250 of 2020
while considering case under Section 493
I.P.C. and 3 read with Section 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act did not approve the issue of
compromise in such offences, which are
against the society and not private in
nature. The relevant observation made by
the Apex Court in paragraph no. 15 of the
said judgment is quoted herein-below:-
6 All. Hemlata & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
133

"15. Bearing in mind the above
principles which have been laid down, we
are of the view that offences for which the
appellants have been charged are infact
offences against society and not private in
nature. Such offences have serious impact
upon society and continuance of trial of
such cases is founded on the overridding
effect of public interests in punishing
persons for such serious offences. It is
neither
an
offence
arising
out
of
commercial,
financial,
mercantile,
partnership or such similar transactions or
has any element of civil dispute thus it
stands on a distinct footing. In such cases,
settlement even if arrived at between the
complainant and the accused, the same
cannot constitute a valid ground to quash
the F.I.R. or the charge sheet".

13. In Bodhi Sattwa Gautam Vs.
Subhra Chakraborty, AIR 1996 SC 922,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed, inter
alia, as under:-

"Unfortunately, a woman, in our
country, belongs to a class or group of
society who are in a disadvantaged position
on account of several social barriers and
impediments and have, therefore, been the
victim of tyranny at the hands of men with
whom
they,
fortunately,
under
the
Constitution enjoy equal status. Women
also have the right to life and liberty; they
also have the right to be respected and
treated as equal citizens. Their honour and
dignity cannot be touched or violated. They
also have the right to lead an honourable
and peaceful life.

Women, in them, have many
personalities combined. They are mother,
daughter, sister and wife and not play
things for centre spreads in various
magazines, periodicals or newspapers nor
can they be exploited for obscene purposes.
They must have the liberty, the freedom
and, of course, independence to live the
roles assigned to them by nature so that the
society may flourish as they alone have the
talents and capacity to shape the destiny
and character of men anywhere and in
every part of the world.

Rape is thus not only a crime
against the person of a woman (victim), it
is a crime against the entire society. It
destroys the entire psychology of a woman
and pushes her into deep emotional crisis.
It is only by her sheer will-power that she
rehabilitates herself in the society which,
on coming to know of the rape, looks down
upon her in derision and contempt. Rape is,
therefore, the most hated crime. It is a
crime against basic human rights and is
also violative of the victim's most cherished
of the Fundamental Rights, namely, the
Right to Life contained in Article 21. To
many feminists and psychiatrists, rape is
less a sexual offence than an act of
aggression
aimed
at
degrading
and
humiliating women. The rape laws do not,
unfortunately, take care of the social aspect
of the matter and are inept in many
respects."

14. Sexual offences constitute an
altogether different class of crime which is
the result of a perverse mind. By their very
nature these crimes cannot be treated at par
with matrimonial offence. Sexual violence
apart from being a dehumanizing act is an
unlawful intrusion of the right of privacy
and sanctity of a female and is a serious
blow to her supreme honor offending her
self-esteem and dignity. Allowing quashing
of charge-sheet, pursuant to a compromise,
will, in such cases, only embolden the
perpetrators
of
such
crimes,
which
otherwise are on the increase, in society. If
the accused in such a case is an affluent
person and the prosecutrix comes from a
134 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
socially or economically weaker strata of
the society, quashing in such a case would
only
encourage
commission
of
such
offences, as the accused, using his money
power or otherwise, may be able to induce
the prosecutrix/victim to enter in to
settlement with him and then seek quashing
of criminal proceedings, on the strength of
that settlement.

15. This Court does not find that this
case fall in categories as recognized by the
Apex Court for quashing the criminal
proceedings of the trial court at pre-trial
stage. Considering the facts, circumstances
and nature of allegations against the
applicants in this case, the cognizable
offence is made out. At this stage, it would
not be appropriate to adjudge whether the
case shall ultimately end in conviction or
not. Only prima facie satisfaction of the
Court about the existence of sufficient
ground to proceed in the matter is required.
The impugned criminal proceedings under
the facts of this case cannot be said to be
abuse of the process of the Court. There is
no good ground to invoke inherent power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by this Court.

16. The relief as sought by the
applicants through the instant application is
hereby refused.

17. This application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly,
dismissed.

18. Office is directed to communicate
this order to the concerned court below as
well as victim/opposite party no.2 of this
case within two weeks.
----------
(2020)06ILR A134
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.02.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 7263 of 2020
With
Application U/S 482 No. 7264 of 2020
With
Application U/S 482 No. 7266 of 2020

Harshit Vij & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Ravi Jha, Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, Sri
Ram Bahadur

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

Civil Law - Negotiable instruments Act,
1881 - Section 139 - Presumption in favour of
holder - once the issuance of cheque is
admitted/established, the presumption would
arise under Section 139 of the N.I. Act in favour
of the holder of cheque that is the complainant -
presumptions u/s 139 of the N.I. Act is
rebuttable. - burden lies upon the accused to
rebut the presumption by adducing evidence -
until the accused discharges his burden, the
presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act will
continue to remain - When disputed questions
of facts are involved which need to be
adjudicated after the parties adduce evidence,
the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act
could not be quashed by the High Court u/s 482
Cr.P.C. (Para 26)

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code (2
of 1974) - Section 245 - Discharge & Framing
of Charge - at the stage of framing of charge
the court is required to evaluate the material
and documents on record with a view to finding
out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at
their face value, disclosed the existence of all
the ingredients constituting the alleged offence -
At that stage, the court is not expected to go
deep into the probative value of the material on