Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Complaint for Cheque Dishonour Due to Lack of Proper Service of Demand Notice and Non-Compliance with Section 138 NI Act Requirements. The court held that the complaint did not disclose essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as the demand notice was not properly served and there were no specific averments against the partners.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Accused
  • 10
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The applicants, M/s D.P. Jain & Co., a partnership firm, and its partners Girish Jain, Dharampal Jain, and Deepak Jain, filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of Summary Criminal Case No.72/2005 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Achalpur. The case arose from a complaint filed by Green Earth Asphalt & Power Pvt. Ltd. (the complainant) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging dishonour of a cheque for Rs. 1,00,000 issued by the applicants. The complainant claimed that the cheque was issued towards payment of dues for construction work, but was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. A demand notice was sent by registered post, but the applicants contended that the notice was not properly served. The applicants argued that the complaint did not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 NI Act, particularly regarding proper service of demand notice and specific averments against the partners. The court examined the complaint and found that the complainant had not mentioned the date of receipt of the notice of dishonour or the date of service of the demand notice. The court also noted that the demand notice was sent by registered post but there was no acknowledgment due or proof of service. Furthermore, the complaint lacked specific averments that the partners were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm. Relying on precedents, the court held that for an offence under Section 138 NI Act, the complainant must prove proper service of demand notice and that the partners can be held vicariously liable only if there are specific averments in the complaint. Since the complaint failed to meet these requirements, the court quashed the proceedings against all applicants. The court allowed the application and set aside the criminal case.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of Proceedings - Section 482 CrPC - Inherent Powers - The High Court can quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of court or to secure ends of justice, especially when the complaint does not disclose essential ingredients of the offence. (Para 1-2)

B) Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Section 138 NI Act - Demand Notice - Proper Service - For an offence under Section 138 NI Act, the complainant must prove that the demand notice was sent by registered post with acknowledgment due or by other prescribed mode, and that it was duly served on the accused. Mere dispatch is insufficient; actual service or deemed service must be established. (Paras 5-7)

C) Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Section 138 NI Act - Vicarious Liability of Partners - A partner of a firm can be held liable for the offence under Section 138 NI Act only if there are specific averments in the complaint that the partner was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm at the time of the offence. Absence of such averments renders the complaint liable to be quashed against such partner. (Paras 8-9)

D) Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Section 138 NI Act - Complaint - Requirements - The complaint must contain all material particulars including the date of issuance of cheque, date of presentation, date of dishonour, date of receipt of notice of dishonour, and date of service of demand notice. Failure to mention these details can lead to quashing of the complaint. (Paras 4-6)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the criminal complaint for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the proceedings therein, are liable to be quashed for non-compliance with the statutory requirements, particularly regarding proper service of demand notice and absence of specific averments against the partners.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the application and quashed Summary Criminal Case No.72/2005 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Achalpur, against all applicants.

Law Points

  • Quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC
  • Dishonour of cheque under Section 138 NI Act
  • Proper service of demand notice
  • Vicarious liability of partners
  • Requirement of specific averments in complaint
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2006 LawText (BOM) (07) 122

Criminal Application No.873 of 2006

2006-07-12

K. J. Rohee, J.

Mr. Shyam Dewani for applicants, Mr. Nitin Sambre for non-applicant no.1, Mr. D.B. Patel, APP for non-applicant no.2/State

M/s. D.P. Jain & Co. and others

Green Earth Asphalt & Power Pvt. Ltd. and State of Maharashtra

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

Nature of Litigation

Criminal application under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of summary criminal case for cheque dishonour.

Remedy Sought

Quashing of Summary Criminal Case No.72/2005 pending before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Achalpur.

Filing Reason

The applicants contended that the complaint under Section 138 NI Act did not disclose essential ingredients of the offence, particularly proper service of demand notice and specific averments against partners.

Issues

Whether the complaint under Section 138 NI Act is liable to be quashed for non-compliance with statutory requirements regarding service of demand notice? Whether the partners can be held vicariously liable in the absence of specific averments in the complaint?

Submissions/Arguments

Applicants argued that the demand notice was not properly served and the complaint lacked specific averments against partners. Complainant argued that the demand notice was sent by registered post and the partners are vicariously liable.

Ratio Decidendi

For an offence under Section 138 NI Act, the complainant must prove proper service of demand notice by registered post with acknowledgment due or other prescribed mode. Partners can be held vicariously liable only if there are specific averments in the complaint that they were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm. Failure to meet these requirements renders the complaint liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.

Judgment Excerpts

By this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the applicants seek to quash Summary Criminal Case No.72/2005 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Achalpur. The complaint does not mention the date of receipt of the notice of dishonour or the date of service of the demand notice. There is no specific averment that the partners were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm.

Procedural History

The complainant filed Summary Criminal Case No.72/2005 under Section 138 NI Act before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Achalpur. The applicants filed Criminal Application No.873 of 2006 under Section 482 CrPC before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, seeking quashing of the proceedings. The court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 12 July 2006.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 482
  • Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: 138
  • Constitution of India: 226, 227
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Complaint for Cheque Dishonour Due to Lack of Proper Service of Demand Notice and Non-Compliance with Section 138 NI Act Requirements. The court held that the complaint did not disclose essential ingredients of the ...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court Dismisses Appeals Against CLB Orders in Oppression and Mismanagement Case — Maintainability of Composite Petitions Under Sections 397 and 398 of Companies Act, 1956 Upheld. The court held that preliminary objections regarding shareholdin...