Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

Only Drawer of Cheque Can be Made Accused: Delhi HC Quashes Complaint Against Joint Account Holder Not Signing Cheque in Section 138 NI Act Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has set aside a criminal complaint against a petitioner in a cheque dishonour case, where she was not the signatory on the cheque. The decision, delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri on February 2, 2024, emphasizes the legal principle that only the drawer of a cheque can be implicated in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The case (CRL.M.C. 2067/2023 and CRL.M.A. 7841/2023) involved a complaint filed by Suman Anand against Neeta Gupta, pertaining to the dishonour of a Rs.20,00,000 cheque. Gupta's primary contention was that the cheque in question was signed by her late husband, and she had not been a signatory to it. Furthermore, she claimed that she did not receive the statutory notice regarding the dishonour, a claim contested by the respondent.

In his judgment, Justice Ohri noted, "The proceedings under Section 138 cannot be used as arm-twisting tactics to recover the amount allegedly due from the appellant… The Court reiterates that it is only the drawer of the cheque who can be made accused in any proceedings under Section 138 of the Act." This observation resonates with the Supreme Court's stance in similar cases like Aparna A. Shah v. Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Alka Khandu Avhad v. Amar Syamprasad Mishra.

The Court underscored that the liability under Section 138 of the NI Act arises from the dishonour of a cheque issued for the discharge of any debt or liability. For initiating prosecution, a prior statutory notice is mandatory. However, in this case, the complaint was deemed an abuse of the legal process since Gupta was not the signatory of the cheque, despite it being drawn from a joint account.

This ruling reiterates the legal position that in cases involving joint accounts, unless each joint account holder has signed the cheque, they cannot be prosecuted under Section 138 of the NI Act. The decision has provided significant clarity on the application of the NI Act in cases of joint account cheques and the limits of liability for non-signatories.

The case was represented by Mr. Mohit Chaudhary for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Gupta for the respondent. With this landmark judgment, the Delhi High Court has reinforced the principle of individual liability in cases of cheque dishonour, providing a shield against unjust prosecution of non-signatory joint account holders.

Date of Decision: 02.02.2024

NEETA GUPTA VS SUMAN ANAND

 

Similar News