2017 (8) TMI 46 - HC - Indian Laws

Complaint under Section 138,141 and 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act - third accused has issued a cheque - Held that - It is trite in law that the person who was issued the cheque in a personal capacity alone can be proceeded against in the event of cheque being dishonoured. In the instant case, the cheque in question was issued by the third respondent/accused and hence, proceeding against the second accused cannot be entertained and hence as against the second accused/revision petitioner, the proceedings have to be quashed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Liability of the second accused in a case under Negotiable Instrument Act.
2. Jurisdiction and transfer of the case between different courts.
3. Quashing of proceedings against the second accused.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a complaint under Section 138, 141, and 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The respondent alleged that the second accused, who was the proprietor of the first accused firm, was liable for a bounced cheque issued by the third accused, the husband of the second accused. The second accused contended that she should not be prosecuted as the cheque was issued by her husband in his individual capacity.

2. The case was transferred multiple times between different courts due to jurisdictional reasons. Initially, it was with Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Coimbatore, then transferred to Judicial Magistrate, Udumalpet, and re-transferred to Fast Track Court, Coimbatore. The court acknowledged these transfers and the amendments to the Negotiable Instrument Act but did not dispute the facts presented.

3. The court held that only the person who issued the cheque in their personal capacity could be held responsible for its dishonor. As the cheque was issued by the third accused, the husband of the second accused, the proceedings against the second accused were quashed. The court allowed the petition to the extent of quashing the proceedings against the second accused alone, emphasizing that the trial court should address the liability of the other accused parties. The trial court was directed to expedite the case, allowing the complainant to assert their rights through legal means.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on clarifying the liability of the accused parties under the Negotiable Instrument Act, addressing jurisdictional transfers, and ultimately quashing the proceedings against the second accused while directing the trial court to proceed with the case efficiently.