Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2018 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 1301 - HC - Indian LawsLiability on account of dishonor of Cheque - contention of the petitioner has been that the cheque in question does not bear his signatures and that the signatory thereof is his wife Taruna Kingrani and that the account on which the cheque had been been drawn belongs to M/s Thought Work Events which is the sole proprietorship concern of his wife and that thus the complaint against the petitioner cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. Held that:- Reliance placed in the case of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Aparna A. Shah v. Sheth Developers private Limited and Another [2013 (7) TMI 718 - SUPREME COURT], wherein it has been categorically observed to the effect: that under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (as amended) it is only the drawer of the Cheque that can be prosecuted and that the penal provisions have to be strictly construed and no one can be held criminally liable for an act of another. Thus, to attract a penal action under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (as amended) it is the drawer of the cheque which has been dishonoured who is to be made accountable under Section 142 of the Seciton138 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (as amended) and not someone else - in present case, in view of the re-verification report of the Bank of Baroda verifying the signatures of the account holder thereof as visible on annexure P-6 as being of Ms. Taruna Kingrani and there being no signatures of the petitioner on the same it is apparent that the proceedings under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (as amended) in Complaint No. 04/4R/16 to that extent cannot be continued. The summoning order dated 29.5.2015 as had been issued by the then Metropolitan Magistrate Seciton 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, bearing No. 17733/15 and now bearing No.4/4R/2016 as pending in the Ld. Court of MM(NW) cannot continue and is thus set aside - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
|