9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 251X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tition No.5069, 5076, 5081 and 5068 of 2021, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') are filed by the petitioner/A.2 seeking to quash the proceedings against her in C.C.No.134 of 2019 on the file of VII Special Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, at Hastinapur and C.C.Nos.274, 275 and 276 of 2019 on the file of XII Special Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, at Hastinapur, respectively. 3. Heard Sri B.Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner/A.2, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1/State, Sri V.V.L.N. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/ complainant, in all the Criminal Petitions and perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the subject C.Cs has already commenced and hence, there is no irregularity in proceeding against the petitioner/A.2 for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act and ultimately prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petitions. 6. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supported the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for respondent No.2/ complainant and ultimately prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petitions. 7. In view of the above submissions made by both sides, the point for determination in these Criminal Petitions is: "Whether the proceedings against the petitioner/A.2 in C.C.No.134 of 2019 on the file of VII Special Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, at Hastinapur and C.C.Nos.274, 275 and 276 of 2019 on the file of XII Spec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless-- (a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account. Therefore, a person who is the signatory to the cheque and the cheque is drawn by that person on an account maintained by him and the cheque has been issued for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability and the said cheque has been returned by the bank unpaid, such person can be said to have committed an offence. Section 138 of the NI Act does not speak about the joint liability. Even in case of a joint liability, in case of individual persons, a person other than a person who has drawn the cheque on an account maintained by h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst the appellant but certainly not under Section 138. The culpability attached to dishonour of a cheque can, in no case "except in case of Section 141 of the N.I. Act" be extended to those on whose behalf the cheque is issued. This Court reiterates that it is only the drawer of the cheque who can be made an accused in any proceeding under Section 138 of the Act. Even the High Court has specifically recorded the stand of the appellant that she was not the signatory of the cheque but rejected the contention that the amount was not due and payable by her solely on the ground that the trial is in progress. It is to be noted that only after issuance of process, a person can approach the High Court seeking quashing of the same on various gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rosecuted, unless and until he/she is a signatory to the subject cheque. Further, the commencement of the trial in the subject C.Cs cannot be a ground to continue the proceedings against the petitioner/A.2. The Courts below erred in taking cognizance against the petitioner/A.2, particularly, when she is not a signatory to the disputed cheques. So the contentions raised on behalf of the respondents do not merit consideration. In view of these circumstances, when no ingredients under Section 138 of N.I.Act are made out against the petitioner/A.2, continuation of the subject proceedings against the petitioner/A.2 is abuse of process of law. Therefore, the proceedings in the subject C.Cs against the petitioner/A.2, are liable to be quashed. 13 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
