Whether the court should quash prosecution for the dishonour of cheque if the accused has filed police complaint regarding the loss of leaves of the cheque?

It is next contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had already lodged a police complaint (NCR) on 25.09.2018 regarding loss of 6/7 cheque leaves of SBI bank. It is contended that the same were stolen by the complainant and the present cheque being one of them, is misused.

12. I have perused the NCR filed by the petitioner as well as the reply filed on behalf of the petitioner to the legal notice. The NCR dated 25.09.2018 lodged by the petitioner, a resident of Vaishali, Ghaziabad, U.P. is about loss of 6/7 signed cheque leaves at Mayur Vihar-I, Delhi and not their theft. Further, the NCR neither mentions the serial numbers of the cheques nor the name of the complainant. In his reply to the legal notice, it was stated that the cheque leaves were stolen by the complainant from the petitioner's house (which is in Vaishali, Ghaziabad) however, no specific date has been mentioned as to when the complainant visited the petitioner's house and stole his signed cheques. The aforementioned two places are distant. Prima facie, the defence taken appears to be self-contradictory.

13. The disputed questions of facts are not to be gone into while exercising power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court in S. Krishnamoorthy v. Chellammal reported as MANU/SC/0372/2015 : (2015) 14 SCC 559 held that when defence of the accused is only factual in nature which is neither admitted by the complainant, nor apparent on the face of the record, then it could be appreciated only by the trial court after the parties have led their evidence.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Crl. M.C. 626/2020

Decided On: 29.06.2020

 Satendra Pal Singh Malik  Vs.   Dhirendra Raj

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.

 Citation: MANU/DE/1322/2020

Print Page

Delhi HC: In the absence of specific direction from the Debtor, Creditor can apply money received by him to any lawful debt

The counsel for the petitioner has argued on the lines of his petition. His main thrust of argument is that since respondent No. 1 admittedly received a sum of Rs. 5 million US Dollars from one of the debtors of the respondent No. 2 company, therefore, after adjustment of this amount, no debt is left and 5 complaints U/s. 138 NI Act are liable to be quashed.

11. The counsel for the respondent No. 1 who appears on advance notice submits that firstly, there is no infirmity in the order dated 30.08.2018 passed by the Ld MM wherein it has been observed that the amount so received by respondent No. 1 was not with respect to the cheques in dispute. He further submits that it is the settled law that it is the discretion of the creditor to apply the money so received to any lawful recoverable debt. He further argued that there was no such directions from the side of the respondent No. 2 company of whose petitioner is one of the directors, to apply the sum of 5 million US Dollars to a particular debt, more specifically against the cheques in respect of which the complaints U/s. 138 NI Act are pending.

12. Section 60 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 reads as follows:

"60. Application of payment where debt to be discharged is not indicated.- Where the debtor has omitted to intimate, and there are no other circumstances indicating to which debt the payment is to be applied, the creditor may apply it at his discretion to any lawful debt actually due and payable to him from the debtor, whether its recovery is or is not barred by the law in force for the time being as to the limitations of suits."

13. In the instant case, though admittedly, an amount of 5 million US Dollars have been received by respondent No. 1 from M/s. Roseberry Global FZE, Sharjah, who according to the petitioner is one of the debtor(s) of respondent No. 2 company but there is nothing on record to suggest that there were any such directions from the side of respondent No. 2 company to apply the said amount so received against the cheques in question in respect of which the complaints are pending.

14. Liability against the respondent No. 2 company is around 14 Hundred Crores and the cheque(s) amount are only part of the money payable by the respondent No. 2 company. Moreover, in view of Section 60 of the Indian Contract Act, in a case, where the debtor has omitted to intimate, and there are no other circumstances indicating to which debt the payment is to be applied, it is the discretion of the creditor to adjust the payment against any lawful debt actually due and payable to him from the debtor.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Crl. M.C. 5942/2019 and Crl. M.A. 40857/2019

Decided On: 27.05.2020

 Rajesh Kumar Gulati Vs. National Agricultural and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.

Print Page

Whether prosecution for dishonour of cheque can be quashed on ground that notice was not served within statutory period?

After hearing counsel for the appellant, we
have no manner of doubt that the reason commended to
the High Court, is unacceptable. For, the fact that
notice was duly served on the respondent or
otherwise, is a triable issue; and cannot be
proceeded as an indisputable position-as is expounded
by this Court in ‘Ajeet Seeds Limited vs. K. Gopala
Krishnaiah’ reported in (2014) 12 SCC 685.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1325 OF 2019

KISHORE SHARMA  Vs  SACHIN DUBEY 

Dated:SEPTEMBER 03, 2019

Print Page

Whether accused can be held guilty in case for dishonour of cheque if it was issued in accordance with agreement of sell?

We find ourselves unable to accept the finding of the learned Single Judge of the High Court that the cheques were not issued for creating any liability or debt, but 'only' for the payment of balance consideration and that in consequence, there was no legally enforceable debt or other liability. Admittedly, the cheques were issued under and in pursuance of the agreement to sell. Though it is well settled that an agreement to sell does not create any interest in immoveable property, it nonetheless constitutes a legally enforceable contract between the parties to it. A payment which is made in pursuance of such an agreement is hence a payment made in pursuance of a duly enforceable debt or liability for the purposes of Section 138.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 483 of 2019 

Decided On: 13.03.2019

Ripudaman Singh  Vs.  Balkrishna

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Hemant Gupta, JJ.

Citation: (2019) 4 SCC 767

Print Page

Whether prosecution for dishonour of cheque is maintainable if cheque is dishonoured on account of incomplete signature?

 The gravamen of the accused-petitioner's case before the High Court was that the grounds on which the cheque had not been honoured, would not constitute offence under Section 138 of the Act, inasmuch as the ingredients that the account-holder had no sufficient funds at the credit of his account or that the amount in the cheque exceeded the amount which the account-holder had at his credit, had not been established in the case. Even there was no direction from the drawer to stop payment and the only ground on which the cheque appears to have not been honoured is that the drawer's signature was incomplete.

4. The High Court, however, having noted the aforesaid contentions, being of the opinion that in view of the judgment of this Court in Modi Cements Ltd v. Kuchil Ku-mar Nandi,' MANU/SC/0171/1998 : 1998CriLJ1397 , refused to quash the proceedings. Hence, the present appeal by the accused.

 In fact, a plain reading of Section 138 of the Act makes it crystal clear that unless the conditions precedent mentioned therein are satisfied, the said penal provision cannot be attracted. In this view of the matter and on the admitted facts, as referred to in paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the High Court committed error in relying upon the judgment of this Court in Modi Cements (supra) and refusing to quash the criminal proceeding. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, quash the criminal proceeding and allow the criminal appeal.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 950 of 2001 

Decided On: 17.09.2001

Vinod Tanna Vs. Zaheer Siddiqui and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

G.B. Pattanaik and Ruma Pal, JJ.

 Citations: 2001 (2) ALD Cri 124, III (2005) BC 379 SC, JT 2001 (10) SC 345, 2003 (1) MhLj 456, 2002 (3) SCALE 320, (2002) 7 SCC 541

Print Page

Whether prosecution for dishonour of cheque can be quashed on ground that notice was not served on accused?

Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case V. Raja Kumari Versus P.
Subbarama Naidu & Anr. (2004) 8 SCC 774 while considering a similar
issue in which after dismissal of the complaint by trial court on the
ground that service of notice under Section 138 of the Act was  
mandatory and mere sending of notice was not sufficient, upheld the
order passed by the High Court that non-service of notice was not a
ground for rejecting the complaint and that the effect thereof was to be
considered during trial, and dismissed the appeal filed before Hon'ble
Supreme Court holding that the burden was on the complainant to
show that the accused had managed to get an incorrect endorsement
made but the effect of it has to be considered during trial.
7. In the instant case, the court took cognizance of the offence
considering prima facie material on record, hence, at the very threshold,
the entire complaint case cannot be thrown out on the mere
endorsement of the postal peon “always door locked” and the same in
view of the mandates given by the Hon‟ble Supreme court in the above
case that the effect of the endorsement shall be considered during trial,
I am not inclined to interfere in the order impugned taking cognizance
as well as in the entire criminal proceeding.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
 Cr. M. P. No.3418 of 2013

Mrs. Rita Kumari, 
 V
The State of Jharkhand

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI NATH VERMA

Dated:- 17.05.2016
Citation: 2016 ALLMR(CRI)JOURNAL 471

Print Page

Whether prosecution for dishonour of cheque can be quashed on ground that cheques were stolen?

It is pertinent to note that the learned counsel for the respondent drew the attention of this Court to page 10  of the petitioner's typed-set of papers, wherein, it was specifically mentioned that these same people are presenting the cheques, time and again from various places.  They are giving mental and physical stress, in all manners. Due to these people, me and my family have an life threating situation , dated 17.09.2011, which is after filing of the respondent's complaint.  Whether the cheque has been issued for discharging legally enforceable subsisting liability or  stolen the cheque from the house of the petitioner, has to be decided only at the time of trial and after letting oral and documentary evidence. It is only question of fact.

Considering the aforestated circumstances of the case, I do not find any reasons to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No.170 of 2011 and therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

 DATED : 09.02.2016

CORAM :

 MS. JUSTICE R.MALA

Crl.O.P.No.5614 of 2013

and M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2013

Senthil Kumar Vs. K.K.Sathishkumar

Citation: 2016 ALLMR(CRI)JOURNAL447

Print Page

Whether high court can quash prosecution for dishonour of cheque on ground that it was issued as security?

 Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of

the view that the accused (respondent no.1) challenged the

proceedings of criminal complaint cases before the High

Court, taking factual defences. Whether the cheques were

given as security or not, or whether there was outstanding

liability or not is a question of fact which could have been

determined only by the trial court after recording evidence

of the parties. In our opinion, the High Court should not have

expressed its view on the disputed questions of fact in a

petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, to come to a conclusion that the offence is not

made out. The High Court has erred in law in going into the

factual aspects of the matter which were not admitted

between the parties. 

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 471 OF 2015

HMT Watches Ltd. V M.A. Abida & Anr.

Citation:AIR 2015 SC (Supp)901

Dated:March 19, 2015

Print Page

When high court should not quash complaint for dishonour of cheque on ground of limitation?

However, when the issue of limitation has come up for the first

time before the High Court, it ought to have dealt with the same on

merits as per proviso to Section 142(b) of the Act. The said proviso

appended to clause (b) of Section 142 of the Act was inserted by the

Negotiable Instruments (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions)

Act, 2002 and the legislative intent was, no doubt, in order to

overcome the technicality of limitation period. The Statement of

Objects and Reasons appended to the Amendment Bill, 2002

suggests that the introduction of this proviso was to provide discretion

to the Court to take cognizance of offence even after expiry of the

period of limitation [See MSR Leathers Vs. S. Palaniappan (2013) 1

SCC 177]. Only with a view to obviate the difficulties on the part of

the Complainant, Parliament inserted the proviso to clause (b) of

Section 142 of the Act in the year 2002. It confers a jurisdiction upon

the Court to condone the delay [See Subodh S. Salaskar Vs.

Jayprakash M. Shah (2008) 13 SCC 689].

21. It is no doubt true that at the time of filing the complaint, the

Magistrate has to take cognizance of the complaint when it is within

limitation and in case of delay in filing the complaint, the complaint

has to come up with the application seeking condonation of delay.

But, the peculiar fact of the present case is that in the complaint, the

complainant had only averred that he has sent the legal notice dated

24th May, 2012 but not mentioned about the handwritten note dated

27th April, 2012. Basing on the said averment, the learned Trial Judge

was satisfied that the complaint is within the prescribed period of

limitation. Hence, in this case, raising the plea of limitation and Court

exercising the discretion to condone the delay did not arise at all.

22. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, while

keeping in mind the legislative intent and the specific plea of the

appellant raised in the grounds for the Special Leave Petition that he

should have been allowed to move an application for condonation of

delay before the Trial Court as the respondent has not suffered any

prejudice by reason of 25 days delay, we strongly feel that the

appellant should not have been deprived of the remedy provided by

the Legislature. In fact, the remedy so provided was to enable a

genuine litigant to pursue his case against a defaulter by overcoming

the technical difficulty of limitation. Hence, the High Court has

committed an error by not considering the issue of limitation on

merits.

23. In view of the settled principles of law in Rakesh Kumar Jain,

MSR Leathers. Subodh S. Salaskar (supra) and in the peculiar

facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered

opinion that the High Court was not right in quashing the complaint

merely on the ground that complaint is barred by limitation, that too a

plea which was taken for the first time before the High Court. On the

other hand, the High Court ought to have remanded the matter to the

Trial Court for deciding the issue of limitation.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1684 OF 2014

ARISING OUT OF

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO. 8924 OF 2013

PAWAN KUMAR RALLI 

V

MANINDER SINGH NARULA

N.V. RAMANA, J.

Dated:AUGUST 11, 2014

Citation:(2014)15 SCC245

Print Page

When directors of company can escape liability for dishonour of cheque?

It primarily falls on the drawer company and is
extended to officers of the Company. The normal rule in the
cases involving criminal liability is against vicarious liability,
that is, no one is to be held criminally liable for an act of
another. This normal rule is, however, subject to exception on
account of specific provision being made in statutes extending
liability to others. Section 141 of the Act is an instance of
specific provision which in case an offence under Section 138 is
committed by a Company, extends criminal liability for
dishonour of cheque to officers of the Company. Section 141
contains conditions which have to be satisfied before the
liability can be extended to officers of a company. Since the

provision creates criminal liability, the conditions have to be
strictly complied with. The conditions are intended to ensure
that a person who is sought to be made vicariously liable for an
offence of which the principal accused is the Company, had a
role to play in relation to the incriminating act and further that
such a person should know what is attributed to him to make
him liable. In other words, persons who had nothing to do with
the matter need not be roped in. A company being a juristic
person, all its deeds and functions are result of acts of others.
Therefore, officers of a Company who are responsible for acts
done in the name of the Company are sought to be made
personally liable for acts which result in criminal action being
taken against the Company. It makes every person who, at the
time the offence was committed, was incharge of, and was
responsible to the Company for the conduct of business of the
Company, as well as the Company, liable for the offence. The
proviso to the sub-section contains an escape route for persons
who are able to 'prove' that the offence was committed without
their knowledge or that they had exercised all due diligence to
prevent commission of the offence.
12. The position of a Managing Director or a Joint
Managing Director in a company may be different. These
persons, as the designation of their office suggests, are in
charge of a company and are responsible for the conduct of the
business of the company. In order to escape liability such
persons may have to bring their case within the proviso to

Section 141(1), that is, they will have to prove that when the
offence was committed they had no knowledge of the offence
or that they exercised all due diligence to prevent the
commission of the offence.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
 Crl. Misc. No. M-21674 of 2013 (O&M)
 Date of decision : 17.11.2015
Kishan Lal More and another

versus
M/s. Bibby Financial Services India Pvt. Ltd. & another

CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY
Citation:2016 CRLJ(NOC)213 P&H

Print Page

How to determine jurisdiction of court in case of dishonour of cheque which were payable from all branches in country?

The  order   impugned is  mainly  assailed with  contention
that   the   learned   Magistrate   has   wrongly   refused   to   exercise   the
jurisdiction vested in him by law as well as pursuant to order passed by
Apex   Court.   By   referring   the   printed   endorsement   on   cheques   in
question, the learned Counsel submitted that though the cheques   in
question are drawn from account of respondent No. 2 with Bank of
India, Branch at Angol Road, Belgaum, Karnataka, the cheques are
payable from all the branches of Bank of India within the Country.  It
is,   therefore,   contended   that   as   the   cheques   were   presented   for
realization and encashment to Bank of India, Branch at Borivali, and
same were dishonoured for want of sufficient fund in the account of
respondents No. 2, the said Branch of Bank of India can very well be

treated as Drawee Bank and the presentation of the complaint was fully
justified.  
6. In my view, the contention raised by learned Counsel for
the applicant to decide the correctness of the order passed by learned
Metropolitan Magistrate requires no consideration for the sole reason
that, pending disposal of this application, the Government of India has
issued the Ordinance on dt. 15/6/2015.  By the ordinance issued, the
Government of India has amended the provisions of NI Act, 1881 with
immediate   effect.     The   relevant   provisions   of   the   Negotiable
Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 read as under : ­
3. In the principal Act, section 142 shall be numbered as subsection
(1) thereof and  after sub­section (1) as so numbered, the
following sub­section shall be inserted, namely:—
“(2) The offence under section 138 shall be inquired into
and tried only by a court within whose local jurisdiction,—
(a) if the cheque is delivered for collection through an
account, the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in
due course, as the case may be, maintains the account, is
situated; or
(b) if the cheque is presented for payment by the payee
or holder in due course otherwise through an account, the
branch of the drawee bank where the drawer maintains the
account, is situated.
Explanation.—   For   the   purposes   of   clause   (a),   where   a
cheque is delivered for collection at any branch of the bank of the
payee or holder in due course, then, the cheque shall be deemed to

have been delivered to the branch of the bank in which the payee or
holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the account.”.
4. In the principal Act, after section 142, the following section
shall be inserted,    namely:—
‘‘142A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
Criminal   Procedure,   1973   or   any   judgment,   decree,   order   or
directions of any court, all cases arising out of section 138 which
were pending in any court, whether filed before it, or transferred to
it,   before   the   commencement   of   the   Negotiable   Instruments
(Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 shall be transferred to the court
having jurisdiction under sub­section (2) of section 142 as if that
sub­section had been in force at all material times. 
(2)   Notwithstanding   anything   contained   in   sub­section   (2)   of
section 142 or sub­section (1), where the payee or the holder in due
course,   as   the   case   may   be,   has   filed   a   complaint   against   the
drawer of a cheque in the court having jurisdiction under subsection
(2) of section 142 or the case has been transferred to that
court under sub­section (1), and such complaint is pending in that
court, all subsequent complaints arising out of section 138 against
the same drawer shall be filed before the same court irrespective of
whether those cheques were delivered for collection or presented for
payment within the territorial jurisdiction of that court.
 In view of the above mentioned amendment to Section 142
of NI Act, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and complaint
needs to be restored to the file of Metropolitan Magistrate, 43rd Court,
Borivali,   Mumbai. 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 982 OF 2014
Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd.,

VERSUS
 State of Maharashtra

CORAM  : V. L. ACHLIYA, J. 

PRONOUNCED ON : 21/07/2015
Citation: 2016 ALLMR(CRI)2490

Print Page

Whether prosecution for dishonour of cheque can be quashed if cheque was issued as security deposit?

 In the present case, there was no liability or debt towards the complainant/respondent when the cheque was issued by the contractor. From the language of the agreement as well as allegations made in the complaint, it is clear that said cheque was issued as security deposit and not towards the discharge of any debt or lone. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that in M.S.Narayana Menon @ Mani (Supra), evidence was led by the parties and on the basis of evidence, the Supreme Court came to conclusion that the cheque was issued as a security and, therefore, Section 138 would not be applicable. According to the learned counsel, in this case only process has been issued and the parties are yet to go to the trial and, therefore, said authority in M.S.Narayana Menon @ Mani (Supra) would not be applicable. It would be difficult to accept this contention.

Ratio in M.S.Narayana Menon @ Mani (Supra), is applicable to the facts of the present case. When on the face of the complaint itself, it is clear that the cheque was issued as a security deposit and not towards the discharge of any debt or other liability, case under Section 138 is not made out. When the complaint itself does not make out criminal case to issue the process, to force the accused to undergo trial would be clear misuse of the process of the Court and this should not be allowed. 

Bombay High Court

Joseph Vilangadan vs Phenomenal Health Care Services ... on 20 July, 2010

Bench: J. H. Bhatia

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2243 OF 2009

Print Page

Basic principles for quashing of prosecution against directors of company in case of dishonour of cheque

In Gunmala Sales Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the Court was
concerned with Directors who issued the cheques. This
authority, as we notice, has to be appositely understood. The
two-Judge Bench referred to SMS Pharma I and other earlier
decisions, and came to hold that:-
“30. When a petition is filed for quashing the
process, in a given case, on an overall reading of the
complaint, the High Court may find that the basic
averment is sufficient, that it makes out a case
against the Director; that there is nothing to suggest
that the substratum of the allegation against the
Director is destroyed rendering the basic averment
insufficient and that since offence is made out
against him, his further role can be brought out in
the trial. In another case, the High Court may
quash the complaint despite the basic averment. It
may come across some unimpeachable evidence or
acceptable circumstances which may in its opinion
lead to a conclusion that the Director could never
have been in charge of and responsible for the
conduct of the business of the company at the
relevant time and therefore making him stand the
trial would be an abuse of process of court as no
offence is made out against him.
31. When in view of the basic averment process is
issued the complaint must proceed against the
Directors. But, if any Director wants the process to
be quashed by filing a petition under Section 482 of
the Code on the ground that only a bald averment is
made in the complaint and that he is really not
concerned with the issuance of the cheque, he must
in order to persuade the High Court to quash the
process either furnish some sterling incontrovertible
material or acceptable circumstances to
substantiate his contention. He must make out a
case that making him stand the trial would be an
abuse of process of court. He cannot get the
complaint quashed merely on the ground that apart
from the basic averment no particulars are given in
the complaint about his role, because ordinarily the
basic averment would be sufficient to send him to
trial and it could be argued that his further role
could be brought out in the trial. Quashing of a
complaint is a serious matter. Complaint cannot be
quashed for the asking. For quashing of a complaint
it must be shown that no offence is made out at all
against the Director.”
[Emphasis supplied]
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.271-273 OF 2016
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) Nos.484-486 of 2016)
Standard Chartered Bank 
 V
State of Maharashtra and Others Etc.

Dipak Misra, J.
Citation:(2016)6 SCC62

Print Page

Whether prosecution for dishonour of cheque is tenable against partnership firm if firm is not made accused in said proceeding?

When as per Section 141(1) of the N.I. Act, the

company should be an accused, in cases wherein it is a

Company, going by the explanation, in the case of a

partnership firm, the firm should also be an accused in the


case. As per explanation(b) to Section 141(2) of the N.I. Act,

"'Director,' in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm."

Over and above the partners, who are responsible for the

conduct of the business of the partnership firm, the

partnership firm should also be a party to the complaint.

When the partnership firm is not arraigned as an accused,

the complaint fails and therefore, Annexure 1 complaint in

C.C.No.290/13 on the file of the Judicial First Class

Magistrate's Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram as against the

petitioner, is liable to be quashed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                                      PRESENT:

                         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

           WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015

                                           Crl.MC.No. 270 of 2014 
            SHEEJA MOL, 
Vs
         THE STATE OF KERALA
           
Citation; 2016 ALLMR(CRI)Journal 177

Print Page

Whether offence of dishonour of cheque is made out if accused issued cheque after closure of his bank account?

 When the facts and circumstances of the present case are examined in the light of observations made in the aforesaid extract, I am of the considered opinion that even if the petitioner has issued a cheque on an account being maintained by him and the account was closed by him prior to issuance of the cheque, the net effect is that there was no money in the account on which the cheque was drawn and as a result, the cheque got dishonoured for want of funds to honour the cheque in that account attracting mischief of Section 138 of the Act. The petitioner in the circumstances of the present case may also be guilty of committing another offence for issuance of cheque from an account which already stood closed. Keeping in view conduct of the petitioner, he otherwise does not entitle himself to seek indulgence of this court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section482 Cr.P.C.
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
CRM-M-33763 of 2010
Date of Decision:23.7.2014
Sandeep Mehra alias Babl
V
Chander Parkash Madan

Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Rekha Mittal
Citation;2015 ALLMR(CRI)JOURNAL231

Print Page