Only the drawer of the cheque can be prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and joint account holders cannot be held vicariously liable for the acts of the drawer.

JUDGMENT

Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J. - The question that arises for consideration in the instant petition is as to whether a person can be summoned and prosecuted for dishonor of a cheque under Section 138/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, on account of being a joint account holder with the drawer of the cheque?

2. This instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed for quashing of the Complaint No.NACT-1243 of 2016 instituted on 16.11.2016 (Annexure P-1) under Section 138/142 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 and summoning order dated 20.05.2017 (Annexure P-2) vide which the petitioners have been summoned under Section 138 of N.I. Act, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra, District Kurukshetra, order dated 13.08.2018 (Annexure P-3), order dated 13.11.2018 (Annexure P-5) and order dated 30.08.2019 (Annexure P-11) alongwith all the consequential proceedings in the complaint (Annexure P-1) pending in the Court of JMIC, Kurukshetra.

Facts:-

3. The respondent-complainant filed a complaint against the petitioners along with the drawer of the cheque alleging that the petitioners being followers of ISKCON introduced themselves to the complainant as Directors of Vernasko and developed intimacy with the complainant. Taking benefit of the relationship, the petitioners-accused asked for financial assistance at which various sums of money was advanced by the complainant to the accused-petitioners herein. On money being demanded, two cheques bearing cheque no. 483230 dated 21.09.2016 drawn on ICICI bank for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the joint account by co-accused (non-petitioner) Suresh Pothugunta and another cheque bearing no. 055976 dated 28.09.2016 drawn on Bank of India for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- was also issued by co-accused (nonpetitioner) Suresh Pothugunta himself. Both the said cheques were returned dishonoured on presentation resulting in institution of the complaint. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are not the signatories on any of the cheques. Whilst the first cheque was from the joint account, the second cheque was from the individual account. The amount in question is not alleged to be advanced to the company

Arguments of the petitioners

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has argued that the proceedings have been filed against the petitioners in violation of the settled law. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the complaint (Annexure P-1) and to the averments raised therein. The relevant paragraph is reproduced hereinafter below:-

'2. Accused pose themselves as the director of the company Vernasco (worship via work). Taking the benefit of relation accused demanded finance assistance from the complainant as they are in need of money. Complainant gave him money at different point of time through RTGS and Cash. At the time of borrowing money accused person assured the complainant that they will return the money along with interest."

5. He has further referred to the cheques that were dishonored and appended as Annexures P-6 and P-7 respectively to contend that the cheques in question had been signed by Suresh Pothugunta and that the petitioners are not signatories to said cheques. It is pointed out that the cheque No.483230 dated 21.09.2016 has been signed by Suresh Pothugunta individually and the account in question happens to be a joint account. While referring to the second cheque drawn on Bank of India account bearing No.055976, it has been pointed out that the said cheque pertains to the personal account of P. Suresh and not the petitioners. An argument thus has been advanced by the learned counsel that as per the allegations averred in the complaint, once the amount in question is stated to have been borrowed by the alleged accused in their individual capacity and the same was never borrowed for the Company-Vernasko, the company could not be prosecuted. Besides, the petitioners are not signatories to the cheque even though one of the dishonoured cheque belongs