SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Kar) 1210

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M.I.Arun, J.
Smt. Veenashri - Appellant
Versus
Sri. Shankar - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 2129 of 2019
Decided On : 19-10-2022

Advocates appeared:
Sri. P.N. Manmohan, Advocate, for the Appellant; Sri. Srinath G. Kulkarni, Advocate) (Absent), for the Respondent.

Liability under Section 138 of the N.I. Act requires the accused to be a signatory to the dishonored cheque, and the provisions of Section 141 regarding the liability of a company, firm, or association of individuals must be met.

Headnote:

cheque dishonor - liability of accused - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138, Section 141

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, accused No.2, along with her husband and mother-in-law owed money to the respondent. A cheque issued in favor of the respondent was dishonored, leading to a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner, accused No.2, was not a signatory to the dishonored cheque and could not be prosecuted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The court also noted that the three accused did not constitute a company, firm, or association of individuals as contemplated under Section 141 of the N.I. Act.

Issues: The main issue was the liability of the petitioner for the dishonored cheque issued by her husband, accused No.1.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner, not being a signatory to the cheque and the accused not constituting a company, firm, or association of individuals, could not be made accused for the dishonor of the cheque issued by her husband.

Final Decision: The criminal petition was allowed, and the proceedings in C.C.No.1220/2018 relating to the petitioner were quashed.

ORDER

1. On the ground that the petitioner - accused No.2 along with her husband and mother-in-law owed certain sum of money to the respondent -complainant and in discharge of the legally enforceable debt, a cheque was issued in favour of the respondent and the same was dishonored, a private complaint was filed by the respondent under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(hereinafter referred to as 'N.I.Act' for short) by way of PCR.No.11891/2017, which is presently registered as C.C.NO.1220/2018 on the file of 22nd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner, who is accused No.2 in C.C.No.1220/2018 has preferred the present petition with a prayer to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1220/2018 against her.

2. The case of the petitioner is that she never signed the cheque which have been dishonored and the same were only signed by her husband (accused No.1) and she cannot be prosecuted under the provisions of Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

3. In spite of being represented by an advocate, the advocate for the respondent has remained absent.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the complaint and the copies of the documents enclosed along with it.

5. It is seen from the complaint, the allegation is that all the three accused persons including the petitioner herein had borrowed hand loan from the respondent herein and in discharge of the same, accused No.1, who is the husband of the petitioner herein issued four cheques, which have been dishonored and accordingly, proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act have been initiated against the petitioner and two other accused. However, it is seen that accused is not a signatory to the cheque and it is the specifically averred that it is not a joint account also. In the complaint also, it is specifically stated by the complainant that accused No.1, who is the husband of the petitioner has issued the cheque. The three accused in C.C.No. 1220/2018 do not constitute a Company or a firm or Association of individuals as contemplated under Section 141 of N.I. Act. Hence, under the circumstances, petitioner cannot be made accused for dishonor of the cheque issued by her husband and he alone can be prosecuted for the same.

6. For the aforementioned reasons, I pass the following:

ORDER

    i. The criminal petition is allowed.

    ii. Proceedings in C.C.No.1220/2018 dated 08.12.2017 on the file of 22nd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in so far as it relates to the petitioner herein is concerned is quashed.

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top