IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. Jayachandran, J.
M/s Challani Rank Jewellery and ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Ashok Kumar Jain Proprietor of M/s Mangalkalash Jewellers - Respondent
Crl.O.P.No.21268 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.Nos.12190 & 12191 of 2024
Decided On : 17-10-2024
ORDER :
G. Jayachandran, J.
The Criminal Original Petition to quash the criminal complaint filed for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(in short “NI Act”) is on the following two specific grounds.
(1) Single complaint in respect of dishonour of 36 cheques bearing different dates is not maintainable in view of Section 219 of Cr.P.C.
(2) The account from which the cheques drawn had sufficient fund to honour the cheque but not honoured in view of the account blocked as per order of the Income Tax Department and the Enforcement Directorate. Hence, the facts of the case does not fall under any of two contingencies contemplated under Section 138 of NI Act.
2. The crux of the complaint against the petitioners:
Complainant Mr.Ashok Kumar Jain, Proprietor of M/s Mangalkalsh Jewellers carrying on business at 152, Mint Street, First Floor, Sowcarpet, Chennai, is a dealer in silver articles and silver bullions. The first accused M/s Challani Ranka Jewellery, a partnership Firm, dealing with silver articles and silver bullions. The second and third accused are its partners. On 14/08/2020 M/s Chellani Ranka Jewellery purchased silver articles and silver bullions worth Rs.1,10,35,566/- from the complainant under invoice even dated with promise to pay the price within 7 days, failing which will pay 24% interest p.a. till the date of payment.
3. Towards part discharge of the legally enforceable debt/liability, on behalf of the first accused, the second accused with the knowledge of the third accused issued 36 cheques drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Sowcarpet Branch, Chennai. The cheques are for different amount drawn on various dates between 14/08/2020 and 30/09/2020, totally for Rs.1,05,35,566/-.
4. The complainant initially presented 10 cheques for collection through State Bank of India, Elephant Gate Branch. All 10 cheques were dishonoured. Subsequently, the complainant met the 2nd and 3rd accused, informed them about the dishonour of the cheques and sought for payment.
The 2nd and 3rd accused assured honouring the cheques and requested to represent them. However, on representation all the 36 cheques were returned with endorsement “Account blocked situation covered in 2125”. Intimating the dishonour of the 36 cheques, the complainant issued statutory notice dated 29/10/2020 to the accused, demanding payment of Rs.1,05,35,566/-being the cheques amount. The notice was received by the accused on 31/10/2020 and they replied through their counsel vide, reply notice dated 07/11/2020 containing false and frivolous statements and allegations. The accused never took any steps to clear the legally enforceable debt.
5. Having issued cheques with fraudulent intention to cheat, the accused 1 to 3 have jointly and severally committed offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act.
6. At paragraph 11 of the complaint, the cause of action for the complaint is narrated as below:-
Laxmi Dyechem v. State of Gujarat reported in (2012) 13 SCC 375
Manjula Vs. Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. (2006 (5) CTC 303
A single complaint for dishonour of multiple cheques is maintainable under Section 138 of the NI Act if they arise from a single transaction, and account blockage does not exempt liability.
A single complaint for the dishonor of multiple cheques issued in one transaction is maintainable under the NI Act, despite the provisions of the CrPC.
A single complaint for dishonour of multiple cheques is maintainable if a consolidated notice of demand is served, as they constitute one offence upon failure to pay.
Joint prosecution for multiple cheque dishonours is permissible if they arise from a single transaction under the Negotiable Instruments Act and may be tried together as per the Code of Criminal Proc....
A person who is not a signatory to the cheque cannot be prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, for the offence of dishonour of cheque for insufficiency of funds.
(1) Dishonour of cheques – Under Section 138 of NI Act, a separate cause of action arises upon each dishonour of a cheque provided statutory sequence of presentation, dishonour, notice, and failure t....
Presumption against the drawer of the cheque, dishonour of cheques due to closure of the account, and the petitioner's failure to rebut the presumption.
The dishonour of cheques and the existence of a legally enforceable debt must be proved, and the presumption under section 139 of the NI Act can only be rebutted with strong evidence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.