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

2025 Supreme(Bom) 1291

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
M.W.CHANDWANI
Monica, W/o Nirav Shah – Appellant
Versus
Dharampeth Mahila Multi State Co-Operative Society Ltd, through its court agent Shri Rajesh Nilkantrao Sathwane – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr S. S. Sitani, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr A. Tripathi, Advocate

Judgement Key Points
  • The Supreme Court/High Court held that a joint account holder cannot be prosecuted under Section 138 NI Act unless the cheque is signed by each joint account holder; the petitioner, as a joint account holder who did not sign the cheque, cannot be liable. (!) (!)
  • The issuance of process against a non-drawer constitutes abuse of process; the impugned order quashing process against the petitioner was warranted. (!) (!)
  • The decision emphasizes that under Section 138 NI Act, only the drawer of the cheque can be prosecuted; joint account holders are not liable unless they sign the cheque. (!) (!)
  • The case cites Aparna A. Shah vs. Sheth Developers Private Limited (2013) 8 SCC 71 to support that liability under Section 138 is limited to the drawer, and joint account holders not signing are not liable. (!) (!)
  • The petition is allowed; the order issuing process against the petitioner is quashed and set aside. (!) (!)

What is the liability of a joint account holder under Section 138 NI Act when not a signatory to the cheque?

What is the impact of issuing process against a non-drawer in Section 138 NI Act cases?

What does Aparna A. Shah (supra) say about the liability of joint account holders under Section 138 NI Act?


Table of Content
1. complaint details under section 138 of n.i. act. (Para 3 , 4)
2. arguments on liability concerning joint account. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. interpretation of drawer liability under section 138. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. process abuse against non-drawer joint account holder. (Para 12)
5. rule made absolute to quash lower court order. (Para 13)

JUDGMENT :

M.W. CHANDWANI, J.

Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

3. The petition seeks quashing and setting aside of the order dated 13.04.2017 passed below Exhibit-1 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur, in S.C.C. No.16088 of 2016, thereby issuing process against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

4. Shorning of unnecessary details, the case is as follows :

The respondent – State Co-operative Society Limited, Nagpur, filed a criminal complaint bearing S.C.C. No.16088 of 2016 against the petitioner as well as her husband for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, “the N.I. Act”). The Co-operative Society had advanc

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top