9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Interpretation of Section 138 regarding dishonour of cheques due to attachment orders. 3. Applicability of precedents in similar cases of cheque dishonour. Detailed Analysis: Quashing of Proceedings under Section 138: The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, arguing that the dishonour of the cheque was due to a court order attaching the bank account, not due to insufficient funds. The complainant alleged that the petitioner issued a cheque for Rs. 1,52,35,000/- which was dishonoured due to "funds insufficient" and "payment stopped by attachment order/court order." Interpretation of Section 138: The petitioner argued that for an offence under Section 138 to be made out, the account must be "maintained" by the drawer for payment. Since the account was attached by a court order, it could not be maintained by the petitioner, thus no offence was committed. The court examined whether the dishonour due to a court attachment order could constitute an offence under Section 138. Applicability of Precedents: The petitioner cited several cases, including *Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Kerala*, *Standard Chartered Bank vs. State*, and *Nagaraja Upadhya vs. M. Sanjeevan*, to support the argument that court-ordered attachment does not constitute an offence under Section 138. In these cases, courts held that when a bank account is attached by a court order, the dishonour of cheques drawn on such an account does not attract penal consequences under Section 138. The respondent, however, relied on cases like *Pawan Kumar vs. Ashish Enterprises*, *Modi Cement Ltd. vs. Kuchil Kumar Nandi*, and *NEPC Micon Ltd. vs. Magma Leasing Ltd.*, arguing that Section 138 should be interpreted to cover situations where the drawer tries to avoid payment by creating grounds other than those mentioned in the section. Court's Analysis and Conclusion: The court analyzed the cited precedents and observed that for an offence under Section 138, the dishonour must be due to insufficiency of funds or exceeding the arrangement with the bank. It noted that the attachment of the bank account was a court-ordered action beyond the petitioner's control, and not a voluntary act to avoid payment. The court distinguished between voluntary acts of the drawer leading to dishonour and situations where external factors like court orders prevent payment. It concluded that the attachment of the account by a court order did not amount to an offence under Section 138, as the petitioner could not maintain the account due to the attachment. Therefore, the court allowed the petition and quashed the complaint, stating that no offence under Section 138 was made out against the petitioner based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
|
