Supreme Court Quashes Complaint Under Negotiable Instruments Act Due to Lack of Ingredients. The cheque was not drawn on an account maintained by the appellant, failing to satisfy the essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138.

In Favour of Accused
  • 5
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, which partly allowed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complainant, engaged in trading petroleum products, alleged that the appellant and his family issued a cheque for Rs. 24,92,115/- which was returned unpaid due to 'Account closed'. After receiving a legal notice, the complainant filed a complaint against the appellant and three others. The Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint, but the High Court dismissed the quashing petition for the appellant, stating that the issue of whether the cheque was issued by him involved a disputed question of fact. The appellant contended that the cheque was drawn from an account not maintained by him, thus lacking the basic ingredients of the offence under Section 138. The complainant argued that the cheque was issued with fraudulent intent. The Supreme Court analyzed the requirements of Section 138 and found that the cheque was not drawn on an account maintained by the appellant, failing to meet the necessary legal criteria for the offence. The Court emphasized that the High Court should have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 to prevent abuse of process, ultimately allowing the appeal and quashing the complaint against the appellant.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Quashing of Complaint - Ingredients of Offence - Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - The court held that the cheque in question was not drawn on an account maintained by the appellant, thus failing to satisfy the essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138. The High Court's refusal to quash the complaint was deemed erroneous, leading to the appeal being allowed and the complaint quashed (Paras 11-18).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the High Court erred in not quashing the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the appellant.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court, and quashed the complaint against the appellant.

Law Points

  • Quashing of complaint
  • ingredients of offence
  • Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act
  • 1881
  • jurisdiction under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure
  • 1973
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2009 LawText (SC) (07) 104

Criminal Appeal No. 1180 of 2009

2009-07-10

D.K. Jain, R.M. Lodha

Jugesh Sehgal

Shamsher Singh Gogi

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against the dismissal of a quashing petition under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Remedy Sought

The appellant sought to quash the complaint filed against him.

Filing Reason

The complaint was filed due to the dishonor of a cheque issued by the appellant.

Previous Decisions

The High Court partly allowed the petition under Section 482 but dismissed it concerning the appellant.

Issues

Whether the High Court erred in not quashing the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the appellant.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that the cheque was not issued from his account, thus lacking the basic ingredients of the offence. The complainant contended that the cheque was issued with fraudulent intent and that the issue of its issuance should be determined after evidence is led.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that to constitute an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, all essential ingredients must be satisfied, including that the cheque must be drawn on an account maintained by the drawer. Since the cheque was not drawn on the appellant's account, the complaint could not stand.

Judgment Excerpts

The very first ingredient of Section 138 of the Act, enumerated above, is not satisfied and consequently the case against the appellant for having committed an offence under Section 138 of the Act cannot be proved. It was a fit case where the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, should have quashed the complaint under Section 138 of the Act. The continuance of further proceedings in the complaint under Section 138 of the Act against the appellant, would be an abuse of the process of the Court.

Procedural History

The appellant filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code to quash the complaint, which was partly allowed by the High Court, dismissing the petition concerning the appellant while allowing it for the other accused.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 482
  • Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: Section 138
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Arbitration Dispute Over Contract Variation Clause. The court upheld the arbitrator's interpretation of the variation clause allowing for market rates when total variations exceeded 25%.
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Considers Challenge to Locking and Sealing Notice Under Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. The petitioner challenged a notice directing de-occupation of premises within seven days for alleged unauthorized construction deviations u...