Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ANU MALHOTRA, J.
SHRI ANIL KINGRANI - Petitioner
Versus
SHRI VINOD KUMAR - Respondent
Crl.M.C.No. 1808 of 2016 & CRL. M.A. 7671 of 2016
Decided on : 19-11-2018
Negotiable Instruments Act - Quashing of complaint under Section 139/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code - Section 138/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of a complaint under Section 139/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, regarding a dishonored cheque. The petitioner argued that the cheque did not bear his signature and that the account belonged to his wife's sole proprietorship.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's wife was the signatory of the dishonored cheque and that the petitioner's signature was not present. The court relied on the Supreme Court's interpretation that only the drawer of the dishonored cheque can be prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner could be held liable for the dishonored cheque when it was his wife who was the signatory and the account belonged to her sole proprietorship.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principle that under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, only the drawer of the dishonored cheque can be prosecuted. The court also emphasized the need for strict interpretation of penal statutes and the absence of vicarious liability in criminal law unless specifically provided by the statute.
Final Decision: The court set aside the summoning order under Section 138/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and allowed the complainant to seek redressal under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
ANU MALHOTRA, J.
1. The petitioner vide this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeks quashing of a complaint case No. 04/4R/2016 under Section 139/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and as per order dated 29.5.2015, the proceedings are stated to be pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-03, Rohini.
2. A perusal of the record indicates that vide order dated 29.5.2015, the petitioner herein was summoned for an offence punishable under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (as amended) on a complaint filed by the respondent herein under Section 138 read with 142 of the Seciton138 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (as amended) read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. The petitioner submits that qua the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (as amended), it is well settled that it is only the signatory of the allegedly dishonoured cheque who can be made liable in relation thereto. The averments made in the complaint bearing No. 17733/15 filed before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (South-East) and now bearing no.04/4R/2016 pending in the Rohini Courts as filed by the complainant/the respondent herein, alleges that the petitioner Anil Kingrani and his wife Taruna Kingrani, approached the plaintiff for the sale of Plot bearing No.1402, measuring 32.00 sq. meters in Block & Pocket-C-1, Sector-34, situated in the lay out Plan of Rohini Residential Scheme, Rohini, Delhi- 110085 vide Application No.24187 and application No.23629 for a consideration of Rs.11,00,000/- and the petitioner herein and his wife being owners of the said plot entered into an agreement to sell dated 12.12.2013 with the complainant and against that agreement, the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- in cash and two cheques amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- each drawn on Andhra Bank, Pitampura Branch, Delhi and that the petitioner and his wife executed another agreement to sell dated 30.12.2013 against which the complainant had paid the balance amount of Rs.6,00,000/- in respect of the said plot.
4. As per the averments made in the complaint filed by the respondent, the petitioner and his wife after sometime, showed their inability to sell the above said plot to the complainant due to some unavoidable circumstances and the complainant agreed to his difficulty cooperated with the petitioner herein allegedly and a Cancellation Deed was executed in respect of the agreement dated 12.12.2013 by the petitioner and his wife and the petitioner returned the entire consideration amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant, which was duly acknowledged by the complainant but the petitioner and his wife despite repeated demands and requests made by the complainant did not return the amount of Rs.6 lacs against the second agreement which was executed by the petitioner and his wife for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as per the agreement dated 30.12.2013 which amount as per the complainant (i.e. the respondent herein) is still due against the petitioner and his wife.
5. The complainant (i.e. the respondent to the present petition) in his complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 & Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (as amended) read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, further submitted that in the middle of March, 2015 the complainant personally visited the accused i.e. the petitioner herein and his wife, namely, Smt. Taruna and demanded a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- which he had paid against the second agreement dated 30.12.2013 and the petitioner allegedly in discharge of his legal liability issued a cheque bearing No.000070 dated 12.3.2015 for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, drawn on the Bank of Baroda, Zamrudpur Branch, New Delhi and the complainant represented the same to his banker for encashment but the same was returned dishonoured with the remarks "FUNDS IN
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
