TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 663X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er 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 s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id the cheque amount nor issue reply notice to the respondent. Hence, the complaint. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would raise the following grounds to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner herein: The cheque in question in the criminal proceedings issued by P.David Rajan that too from the current account stands in the same of said P.David Rajan. The petitioner never issued any cheque and never be the signatory to the alleged cheque issued by the petitioner. Further, the account from which, the cheque issued is also not belong to the petitioner herein. Therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance as against the petitioner herein. It is seen from the naked eye that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the judgment reported in 2013(8) SCC 71 Aparna A. Shah V. Sheth Developers (P) Ltd. , wherein, the Apex Court has held as follows: 22) In the light of the above discussion, we hold that under Section 138 of the Act, it is only the drawer of the cheque who can be prosecuted. In the case on hand, admittedly, the appellant is not a drawer of the cheque and she ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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 grounds available to him. Accordingly, the High Court was clearly wrong in holding that the prayer of the appellant cannot even be considered. Further, the High Court itself has directed the Magistrate to carry out the process of admission/denial of documents. In such circumstances, it cannot be concluded that the trial is in advanced stage. 7.In the light of the above principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, it is only the drawer of the cheq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urn of the cheque as unpaid; and ( c ) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. Explanation .-For the purposes of this section, debt or other liability means a legally enforceable debt or other liability. 8.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 responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
