2021 (4) TMI 1106 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - joint complaint by two complainants - Section 138 read with Section 142 of NI Act, allows for such joint complaints or not - HELD THAT - From the legal position enunciated by various High Courts in reference to Section 200 of Cr. P. C, a joint complaint by two or more person against an accused is clearly not maintainable - reliance may be placed in the case of Parijanashram Swamiji vs. Kailaje 1985 (11) TMI 242 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT . Whether what is held by various High Courts with reference to Section 200 of Cr. P. C is applicable to the complaints filed under Chapter XVII of the Act? - HELD THAT - The reference to the complainant as a person in Section 138 of the Act, prima facie, indicates that Section 138 too envisages a complaint by a single person. Similarly, if we look at the provisions of Section 141 of the Act, which pertains to the offences by the companies, it also refers to a person committing an offence under Section 138 - Section 142, which lays down the procedure as to how the cognizance in a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Act is to be taken by the Court, also speaks of a complaint and not the complaints which would also indicate that it envisages only one complainant in a complaint and, therefore, rules out filing of a joint complaint by two or more than two persons. As is provided under Section 143 of the Act, the cases under Section 138 of the Act are required to be tried summarily by following the procedure laid down under the provisions of Sections 262 to 265 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is only when at the commencement of, or in the course of, a summary trial, it appears to the Magistrate that the nature of the case is such that a sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding one year may have to be passed or that it is, for any other reason, undesirable to try the case summarily, the Magistrate shall after hearing the parties, record an order to that effect and thereafter recall any witness that may have been examined and proceeded to hear or rehear the case in the manner provided by the Criminal Procedure Code. It is, thus, not correct to say that Chapter XVII is a complete Code in itself and exclude the applicability of the Criminal Procedure Code. This petition is allowed in part and the impugned complaint and the proceedings taken thereon, in so far as respondent No.2 is concerned, shall stand quashed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a joint complaint by two complainants under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is maintainable.
2. Whether the impugned order dismissing the application to quash the joint complaint was valid.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of Joint Complaint under Section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:

The petitioner challenged the maintainability of a joint complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, arguing that the Act does not envisage a joint complaint by two complainants. The respondents had filed a joint complaint alleging that the petitioner owed them ?2,50,000 for land purchased and had issued four cheques, which were dishonored due to insufficient funds. The respondents served a common legal notice to the petitioner, who failed to pay the amount, leading to the filing of the joint complaint.

The petitioner contended that neither Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure nor Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act allows for a joint complaint. The petitioner cited various judgments, including those from the Karnataka and Madras High Courts, to support this view.

The respondents argued that in the absence of a specific bar under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a joint complaint is maintainable, especially when the cheques were issued to discharge a joint liability.

The court reviewed the legal position and found that judgments cited by the petitioner indicated that a joint complaint is not maintainable under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court examined Sections 138, 141, 142, and 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and concluded that these sections also envisage a complaint by a single person. The court noted that Chapter XVII of the Act, which includes Section 138, is not a complete code in itself and must be read in conjunction with the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. Validity of the Impugned Order:

The trial court had dismissed the petitioner's application to quash the joint complaint, stating that it lacked jurisdiction to review its order after taking cognizance of the complaint. The trial court relied on Supreme Court judgments in Adalat Prasad v. Roop Lal Jindal and Subramanium Sethuraman vs. State of Maharashtra.

The High Court held that while a joint complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not maintainable, the complaint need not be entirely quashed. Instead, it can proceed on behalf of one of the complainants, allowing the other complainant to seek remedies separately. The court cited the Karnataka High Court judgment in Haridas Naik and Ors. vs. Hanchinamane Gadriyappa and Ors., which supported this view.

Conclusion:

The petition was allowed in part. The impugned complaint and the proceedings thereon were quashed concerning respondent No.2, but the complaint was allowed to proceed concerning respondent No.1. The court clarified that respondent No.2 could file a fresh complaint following due process. The court chose not to give the respondents an option to decide who would continue the complaint to avoid any potential benefit to the petitioner from any disagreement between the respondents. No order as to costs was made, and a copy of the judgment was directed to be sent to the trial court.