AI Overview...
- Complaint under Section 138 R W 142 with no Particulars - Main points and insights:
- A complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act) must contain specific particulars, including details of the accused's role, the nature of the debt, and the circumstances of dishonor. Several cases highlight that generic or vague complaints lacking these particulars are liable to be dismissed or quashed (e.g., Tough Bags (A Parnership Concern), Madurai VS Vaaman Capital, Coimbatore, represented by its Managing Partner, P. Karthik - Madras, A. L. Abul Kalam Azad VS T. Rathinakumar Sri Sumangal Agencies Real Estates and Builders - Madras, Balakrishna Raja, Authorised Signatory BKR Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. & Adhiparasakthi Promoters & Property Developers, Chennai VS S. Peter - Madras).
- The requirement under Section 142(1) of the N.I. Act mandates that the complaint should specify the role of each accused and the nature of the offense, failing which proceedings may be invalidated (SHOBHA KULSHRESHTHA VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Allahabad, LEENA Vs SHAJI AND ANOTHER - Kerala).
- Courts emphasize that the complaint must be filed within the statutory period and must comply with procedural requirements, including proper verification and supporting affidavits (SHOBHA KULSHRESHTHA VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Allahabad, Sanjabij Tari VS Kishore S. Borcar - Supreme Court).
- An application under Section 156(3) CrPC, when treated as a complaint under Section 138, must adhere to procedural norms, including proper framing and particulars, or else it can be challenged or dismissed (SHOBHA KULSHRESHTHA VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Allahabad).
- Lack of particulars or failure to establish the accused's active role can lead to the quashing of proceedings, as seen in cases where the complaint did not meet the necessary legal standards (Tough Bags (A Parnership Concern), Madurai VS Vaaman Capital, Coimbatore, represented by its Managing Partner, P. Karthik - Madras, A. L. Abul Kalam Azad VS T. Rathinakumar Sri Sumangal Agencies Real Estates and Builders - Madras, M.G.THOMASKUTTY Vs C.C.JAYAKUMAR - Kerala).
- The courts have also addressed the issue of whether a complaint can be maintained if the company or entity is not properly arrayed as a party, emphasizing the importance of proper parties and particulars (USHER AGRO LTD. VS STATE OF U. P. - Allahabad, AUGUSTINE Vs B.HARIHARA SUDHAN - Kerala).
-
Overall, the consensus is that a complaint under Section 138 R W 142 must be specific, detailed, and supported by proper evidence and particulars to withstand legal scrutiny (THOMAS ABRAHAM Vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala, M.G.THOMASKUTTY Vs C.C.JAYAKUMAR - Kerala).
-
Analysis and Conclusion:
- A complaint filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act lacking specific particulars—such as the role of the accused, details of the transaction, and the nature of the debt—is liable to be dismissed or quashed. Proper compliance with procedural requirements, including timely filing, detailed allegations, and proper parties, is essential.
- Courts consistently emphasize the importance of clarity and specificity in criminal complaints under the Negotiable Instruments Act to ensure fair proceedings and prevent abuse.
- Therefore, when drafting or evaluating such complaints, it is crucial to include all necessary particulars to establish a prima facie case and avoid procedural dismissals or quashment (SHOBHA KULSHRESHTHA VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Allahabad, Tough Bags (A Parnership Concern), Madurai VS Vaaman Capital, Coimbatore, represented by its Managing Partner, P. Karthik - Madras, M.G.THOMASKUTTY Vs C.C.JAYAKUMAR - Kerala).
References: - Instruments Act, 1881—Sections 138 and 142 (SHOBHA KULSHRESHTHA VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Allahabad) - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Sections 138 and 142 (LEENA Vs SHAJI AND ANOTHER - Kerala, Tough Bags (A Parnership Concern), Madurai VS Vaaman Capital, Coimbatore, represented by its Managing Partner, P. Karthik - Madras, A. L. Abul Kalam Azad VS T. Rathinakumar Sri Sumangal Agencies Real Estates and Builders - Madras, Balakrishna Raja, Authorised Signatory BKR Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. & Adhiparasakthi Promoters & Property Developers, Chennai VS S. Peter - Madras, USHER AGRO LTD. VS STATE OF U. P. - Allahabad, THOMAS ABRAHAM Vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala) - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 156(3) (SHOBHA KULSHRESHTHA VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Allahabad) - Judicial precedents emphasizing particulars and procedural compliance in Section 138 complaints (M.G.THOMASKUTTY Vs C.C.JAYAKUMAR - Kerala, AUGUSTINE Vs B.HARIHARA SUDHAN - Kerala)
Search Results for "Complaint under Section 138 R W 142 with no Particulars"
2007 0 Supreme(All) 2447 • India - Allahabad
R.K.RASTOGI
Instruments Act, 1881—Sections 138 and 142—FIR—Application for under Section 156(3)—Magistrate passed order treating it as complaint—Taking ... a complaint within meaning of Section 2(d) of CrPC—Non-compliance of requirement of Section 142(a) of N.I. ... 2(d) and 156(3)—Complaint—Definition of—An application under Section 156(3) of CrPC before Magistrate for directing police to take ... It was fur....
2019 Supreme(Online)(KER) 23526 • India - High Court of Kerala
TV ANILKUMAR, J
Negotiable Instruments - Cheque Dishonour - Section 138, 142 - Summary: The court addressed the provisions under Sections 138 ... Issues: The main issue was whether the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt as required under Section ... 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. ... Therefore, after giving the statutory period of time for discharge of the debt, the complaint was filed within time under Section #H....
2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 639 • India - Madras
M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Negotiable Instruments Act - Quashing of Proceedings - Section 138, Section 142 - Summary Fact of the Case: The petitioners ... The petitioners argued that the complaint lacked particulars and failed to establish the accused's active involvement in the firm ... Finding of the Court: The court found that the complaint did not meet the necessary requirements under the Negotiable ... Thus, the requirement under Sections 138 and #HL_....
2015 0 Supreme(Mad) 2886 • India - Madras
A.SELVAM
Finding of the Court: The Court found that the complaint lacked necessary particulars and failed to establish the crucial ... Fact of the Case: The complainant, as the Managing Trustee of Indian Educational Trust, filed a complaint under Section ... of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, specifically Sections 138 and 142. ... Under the said circumstances, he committed an offence punishable under Section 138 read with #HL_START....
2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 2237 • India - Madras
M.DHANDAPANI
Negotiable Instruments Act, - Section 138, 142, 139, 141 and 140 – Dishonored of Cheque - Learned counsel ... is bereft of any particulars as to role of petitioner in two companies - Without establishing direct control of petitioner ... u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be sustained - Whether in absence of arraying companies as party to complaint, ... A perusal of the said complaint filed by the respondent herein reveals that the said com....
2018 0 Supreme(All) 804 • India - Allahabad
RAJEEV MISRA
, 138—Dishonour of Cheque—Complaint—Maintainability—Complaint filed under Section 138 would not be maintainable if company on whose ... (A) Negotiable Instrument Act, 1938—Sections 142, 138—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 190—Dishonour of Cheque—Summoning of ... in respect of same should be present in complaint filed under Section 138—Or else same being barred by limitation....
2025 7 Supreme 171 • India - Supreme Court
MANMOHAN, N. V. ANJARIA
time of filing complaint, provide requisite particulars including e-mail address, mobile number and/or WhatsApp number/messaging ... not be necessarily residing within territorial jurisdiction of Court where complaint has been filed – Complainant shall, at the ... application details of accused, duly supported by affidavit verifying that said particulars pertain to accused/respondent – Trial ... Each and every complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act shall contain a ....
2007 Supreme(Online)(KER) 4739 • India - High Court of Kerala
V.RAMKUMAR, J
petition to alter charges, emphasizing that the original complaint lacked sufficient allegations for section 420 IPC, thus maintaining ... Issues: Whether the dismissal of the petition to alter the charge from Section 138 to Section 420 IPC was justified based ... on the allegations made in the original complaint. ... The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that Annexure-I private complaint was filed not only under sections #HL_STA....
2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 33683 • India - High Court of Kerala
MARY JOSEPH, J
Negligence - Complaints - Section 142 NI Act, Section 256(i) CrPC - The court analyzed the conduct of the complainant and the ... Fact of the Case: The complainant's complaint under Section 142 of the NI Act was dismissed due to his absence in court ... Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the order dismissing the complaint was set aside. ... S.T.No.1595 of 2004 was a complaint filed by the complainant before the Judicial....
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 18673 • India - High Court of Kerala
MARY JOSEPH, J
Negotiable Instruments - Prosecution Under Section 138 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138, 142 - The court evaluated ... Fact of the Case: The appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act after a cheque ... In that context, alleging that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 N.I Act, the prosecution was launched by the appellant by fil....
Filter by Legal Phrase
