1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Court quashes criminal proceedings as cheques were issued by company, not individual accused.</h1> The court allowed the petitions seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings in C.C. Nos. 6 and 210 of 1999. It was held that the cheques were issued by ... Dishonour of cheque Issues:Quashing of proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 based on the cheques issued, liability of managing director, and jurisdiction of the complainant to file the complaint.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Liability of Managing DirectorThe petitioner sought quashing of proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, arguing that the cheques in question were issued by the company, not by him personally. While the petitioner is the managing director of the company that issued the cheques, the complaint was filed against him individually. The court noted that the cheques were drawn on the company's account and signed by the managing director on behalf of the company. It was emphasized that for an offence under section 138, the cheque must be drawn by the accused on an account maintained by him personally. As the complaint did not establish that the accused issued the cheques on his personal account, the court held that the requirement of section 138 was not satisfied.Issue 2: Jurisdiction of ComplainantAnother contention raised was that the complainant, Om Sai Securities and Investments Private Limited, should have been the one to file the complaint, not the individual complainant who did so. The court clarified that the company was mentioned in the agreement only to indicate the address of the complainant, who had advanced the loans to the accused. Therefore, the court found no substance in the argument that only the company could have prosecuted the petitioners.ConclusionThe court allowed the petitions seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings in C.C. Nos. 6 and 210 of 1999, as it was determined that the cheques were issued by the company, not the individual accused, and the complainant had the jurisdiction to file the complaint as the lender. The court emphasized the necessity for the cheque to be drawn on the personal account of the accused for liability under section 138 to be established.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
