Appellate Court Can Allow Additional Evidence To Ensure Fair Adjudication Even If Not Produced In Trial: Madhya Pradesh High Court Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts Under Section 106 BNSS Upon Suspicion Of 'Proceeds Of Crime': Punjab & Haryana High Court 'No Penalty For Monthly MGQ Shortfall If Annual Target Met': Supreme Court Upholds Quashing Of Excise Department Demands For Liquor Licensees 'Murder Went Unavenged, But Courts Cannot Convict On Mere Assumptions': Supreme Court Acquits Accused In 1988 Murder Case, Quashes High Court's Remit Order 'NCSC Cannot Pass Mandatory Adjudicatory Orders Directing Payment Of Arrears': Supreme Court Clarifies Commission's Powers Under Article 338 "'Cannot Present Fait Accompli': Supreme Court Upholds Denial Of NOC To Airman For Skipping Prior Permission To Apply For Civil Post" Supreme Court Upholds 2017 Notification For Ex Post Facto Environmental Clearances, Quashes 2021 Office Memorandum As Impermissible Executive Overreach Workman Fails To Prove 240 Days Continuous Work; Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Denial Of Reinstatement For "Abandonment Of Service" Party Cannot Take Contradictory Stands In Same Case, Admissions In Pleadings Bind Them Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC: Telangana High Court Delayed Recovery Of Weapon From Open Space Casts Serious Doubt On Prosecution Story: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Convicts Procedural Irregularities By Public Servants Serve As Circumstantial Evidence Of Conspiracy In Corruption Cases: Kerala High Court Blaming Previous Counsel For Omission Does Not Satisfy 'Due Diligence' Test To Amend Plaint After Trial Commences: Punjab & Haryana High Court Muslim Man's Second Marriage Under Special Marriage Act Void Despite Personal Law Permitting Bigamy: Karnataka High Court Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court Title And Ownership Irrelevant In Suit Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act; Plaint Liable To Be Rejected If Filed Beyond Six Months: Delhi High Court Receipt Of Pension By Widow Can Be Considered To Determine 'Just Compensation' But Not To Deprive Claimants Of Award: Calcutta High Court FSL Report Lacking Scientific Criteria And Data Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Allahabad High Court Issues Directives For Testing Viscera Standard Of Proof In Railway Accident Claims Is Preponderance Of Probabilities, Not Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Gujarat High Court

Wife Not Liable in Joint Account - Only the Drawer Liable Under Section 138 N.I. Act: High Court Quashes Complaint

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling that clarifies the scope of liability in cheque dishonour cases, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has set a precedent in the case of Shalu Arora Vs. Tanu Bathla (CRM M-21768-2022). The court, led by Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S. Shekhawat, emphatically stated that “only the drawer of the cheque can be prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.”

This landmark judgement, delivered on November 30, 2023, revolved around a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Act, concerning a cheque issued from a joint account but signed by only one of the account holders. The petitioner, Shalu Arora, who was not the signatory of the disputed cheque, sought the quashing of the complaint and subsequent summoning order.

Justice Shekhawat, in his observation, underscored the principle of specificity in liability, asserting that the onus of the offence under Section 138 lies solely with the signatory of the cheque. This assertion is grounded in the interpretation of Section 7 of the Act, which delineates the definition of ‘drawer’ and explicitly states the liability of the signatory in cases of cheque dishonour.

The court’s decision has been widely appreciated for its clear demarcation of accountability in cheque dishonour cases, especially those involving joint accounts. Advocates Karan Suneja and R.K. Chaudhary represented the petitioner and respondent, respectively, in this pivotal case.

Date of Decision: 30.11.2023

Shalu Arora VS Tanu Bathla   

Latest Legal News