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

2023 Supreme(Mad) 2579

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
R. Subash – Appellant
Versus
C. Vijay Anand – Respondent
Crl.O.P. No. 8956 of 2023 & Crl.M.P. No. 5735 of 2023
Decided On : 09-08-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:S. Anil Sandeep, Advocate. For the Respondent:J. Chelladurai Caldwell, Advocate.

Only the drawer of the cheque can be made an accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, with the exception of directors/partners being vicariously liable for the debt/liability of the company or partnership firm.

Headnote:

Negotiable Instruments Act - Quashing of Proceedings - A2 - Quashing of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against A2 due to A1 being the signatory of the cheque and the complaint not being sustainable against A2 who is not the drawer of the cheque.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a petition to quash the proceedings in STC No.2465 of 2022, which pertained to an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The main ground was that A1, the signatory of the cheque, issued it in her individual capacity, and the complaint cannot be sustained against A2, who is not the drawer of the cheque.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the complaint was not sustainable against A2, as it was only the drawer of the cheque who could be made an accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner and directed the lower court to complete the proceedings within three months.

Issues: The main issue was whether the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could be sustained against A2, who was not the drawer of the cheque.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court interpreted Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and emphasized that only the drawer of the cheque could be made an accused, with the exception of directors/partners being vicariously liable for the debt/liability of the company or partnership firm. The understanding between the parties could not make the petitioner (A2) an accused in this case, especially since A1 had drawn the cheque in favor of the respondent in her individual capacity.

Final Decision: The criminal original petition was allowed, and the proceedings in STC No.2465 of 2022 against the petitioner were quashed, with a direction to the lower court to complete the proceedings within three months.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in relating tot he proceedings in S.T.C.No.2465 of 2022 on the file of the Fast Track Court I, (Metropolitan Magistrate), Allikulam at Egmore and quash the same as against the petitioner.)

1. This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in STC No.2465 of 2022 pending on the file of the Fast Track Court-I (Metropolitan Magistrate), Allikulam at Egmore.

2. The respondent has filed a complaint against the petitioner and another for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner has been arrayed as A2 in the complaint.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

4. The main ground that was urged before this Court is that A1 is the signatory in the cheque and the said cheque was issued by A1 in her individual capacity. In view of the same, it was contended that the complaint cannot be sustained as against A2 who is not the drawer of the cheque.

5. It is seen from the complaint that loan was obtained from the complainant and it was not repaid back. A legal notice was sent to A1 and her husband regarding the loan taken and a cheque is said to have been issued by A1, who is the Power of Attorney Agent of A2. In view of the same, the agent and the principal have been arrayed as an accused in this case.

6. It is very clear from the language used under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that it is only the drawer of the cheque who can be made as an accused. The only exception is provided under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act where the Directors/Partners can be made vicariously liable for the debt/liability of the Company or the partnership Firm, as the case may be. Whatever is the understanding between the parties, by no stretch, the petitioner (A2) can be made as an accused in this case. This is more so, since A1 had drawn the cheque in favour of the respondent in her individual capacity. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings as against the petitioner (A2) will result in abuse of process of Court which requires the interference of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the proceedings in STC No.2465 of 2022 on the file of the Fast Track Court-I (Metropolitan Magistrate), Allikulam at Egmore, is hereby quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned. There shall be a direction to the Court below to complete the proceedings in STC No.2465 of 2022, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

9. In the result, this criminal original petition is allowed with the above directions. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

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