9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Quashing of complaint u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against company and its directors.
Summary: The petitioners, accused in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, sought to quash the complaint against them. The complainant alleged that the accused company issued a cheque for a certain amount which was later dishonored. The complainant contended that the cheque was retained as security, and thus, the complaint under Section 138 was not maintainable. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 138 which require the cheque to be for the discharge of a debt or liability, and if the cheque amount exceeds the debt owed, the section cannot be invoked. As the cheque amount was more than the actual debt due at the time of presentation, the court held that Section 138 was not applicable. Consequently, the complaint was quashed, and the petition was allowed. In this case, the complainant alleged that the accused company issued a cheque towards an existing liability, which was subsequently dishonored. The complainant received a demand draft for a partial amount, reducing the outstanding debt. However, the complainant presented the original cheque for the full amount, leading to its dishonor. The court considered whether the cheque was retained as security, making the complaint under Section 138 invalid. It was concluded that since the cheque amount exceeded the actual debt, Section 138 could not be invoked, and the complaint was quashed. The court examined the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which state that a cheque should be drawn for the discharge of a debt or liability, in whole or in part. If the cheque amount surpasses the debt owed, Section 138 cannot be applied. In this case, as the cheque amount was more than the actual debt at the time of presentation, the court ruled that Section 138 was not attracted. Consequently, the complaint was quashed, and the petitioners were allowed relief.
|
