Cheque not drawn on accused's account can defeat Section 138 complaint and justify quashing for abuse of process

A complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot survive where its own averments show that the cheque was not drawn on an account maintained by the accused. The first foundational ingredient of Section 138 is that the cheque must be issued by a person on an account maintained by him, and all statutory ingredients must be present cumulatively. If the complaint on its face discloses absence of the basic offence ingredients, continuation of the proceedings would be an abuse of process, and inherent powers may be used to prevent miscarriage of justice. On those facts, the complaint was liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 when the complaint itself showed that the cheque was not drawn on an account maintained by the accused.

Analysis: To attract liability under Section 138, the cheque must be drawn by a person on an account maintained by him, and the statutory ingredients must cumulatively exist. The complaint itself stated that the cheque had been issued from an account which was not maintained by the appellant and that it pertained to someone else. On those averments, the first and foundational ingredient of Section 138 was absent. Where the complaint on its face does not disclose the basic ingredients of the offence and continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of court, the High Court may exercise its inherent powers to prevent miscarriage of justice.

Conclusion: The complaint under Section 138 could not be sustained against the appellant and ought to have been quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

---