Maintainability of cheque dishonour complaint fails where the proper drawer is not impleaded and specific allegations are absent.

Complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act was found not maintainable where the proper drawer entity was not impleaded, the pleadings contained material contradictions about the account-holder and business concern, and no specific averment linked the petitioner to the transaction. The court noted that the cheque was issued by a partner of a partnership firm, yet the firm was absent from the proceedings while a different company name appeared in the complaint and affidavit. It also treated the prior settlement-based dropping of prosecution against the drawer, without clear disclosure of the settlement terms or amount, as leaving no sufficient factual foundation to continue the case against the petitioner alone. The complaint and summoning orders were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act was maintainable against the petitioner in the absence of the proper drawer entity being impleaded and in the absence of specific allegations against her.

Analysis: The complaint disclosed material contradictions on the identity of the concern from whose account the cheque was issued. The cheque was drawn by a partner of the partnership firm, but the firm itself was not impleaded, while a different company name appeared in the complaint and affidavit. The complaint contained no specific averment showing the petitioner's role in the transaction, and the prosecution against the drawer had already been dropped after settlement, with no clear disclosure of the amount or terms of settlement. In these circumstances, the essential factual foundation for continuing the prosecution against the petitioner alone was lacking.

Conclusion: The complaint against the petitioner was held to be not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded and the impugned complaint and summoning orders were quashed.

---