Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2018 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 663 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - recovery of loan - Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act - case of petitioner is that they never issued any cheque and never be the signatory to the alleged cheque issued by the petitioner - Held that:- Admittedly, the cheque has been issued from the current account of CANNAN CITY signed by one P.David Rajan as its Proprietor/authorised signatory. The petitioner/accused is not the signatory to the said cheque issued to the tune of ₹ 3 lakhs dated 11.11.2013 drawn on Axis Bank, Ashok Nagar Branch, Chennai. It is only the drawer of the cheque who can be prosecuted. In the case on hand, admittedly, the petitioner is not a drawer of the cheque and she has not signed the same. A copy of cheque is annexed with the typed set of papers and it is brought to the notice of this Court that one Mr.P.David Rajan signed as Proprietor by authorised signatory of CANNAN CITY from its current account - As per the case of the respondent/complainant, the petitioner borrowed a sum of ₹ 3 lakhs to develop her business on 11.08.2013 on her personal capacity. On the date of the borrowal of the said amount itself, the petitioner issued the cheque in favour of the respondent/complainant. The criminal proceedings filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act cannot be used as arm-twisting tactics to recover the amount allegedly due from the petitioner. It cannot be said that the complainant has no remedy against the petitioner, but, certainly not under the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is not maintainable as against the petitioner herein - petition allowed.
|