Court quashes criminal complaint under Section 138, clarifies liability requirements

The court allowed the petition, quashing the summoning order and criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 against the petitioners. The inadvertent non-impleadment of the Business Manager was rectified by amending the memo of parties to include them individually. The court clarified that liability under Section 138 is not based on negligence and requires specific grounds, which were not met in this case due to the error in issuing the cheque following an account attachment.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the inadvertent non-impleadment of a Business Manager as a petitioner, liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 for dishonoring a banker's cheque, and the consideration of negligence in such cases.

Inadvertent Non-Impleadment of Business Manager:
The counsel for the petitioners acknowledged the mistake of not impleading Karuna Bhatia, the Business Manager, as a petitioner, due to the belief that the petition filed on behalf of Standard Chartered Bank would benefit Karuna Bhatia as well. The court clarified that when a company and the individual in charge are accused, each must seek legal remedy individually. Consequently, an amended memo of parties was accepted, and Karuna Bhatia was impleaded as petitioner No.2.

Liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The petitioners, Standard Chartered Bank and Karuna Bhatia, were summoned to face trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 for the dishonor of a banker's cheque issued by Karuna Bhatia, the Manager of the bank's branch. The complaint was based on the dishonor of the cheque due to the attachment of the account of M/s. A.D. Exports Pvt. Ltd. by the income tax authorities, leading to the issuance of the cheque in error.

Consideration of Negligence in Dishonor of Banker's Cheque:
The court highlighted that the liability under Section 138 of the Act is not based on the tort of negligence. It emphasized that for liability under this section, the cheque must be dishonored due to insufficient funds or exceeding the arranged amount. In this case, the complaint did not establish either ground for action under Section 138. The court noted that the banker had informed the complainant about the reason for dishonor, i.e., the account attachment, which was a mistake. Therefore, the complaint lacked the necessary elements for cognizance, and the tort of negligence is not a component of an offense under Section 138.

Conclusion:
The petition was allowed, and the summoning order against the petitioners, as well as the criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, were quashed by the court.

---