Court rules only issuer of bounced cheque liable under Negotiable Instrument Act, quashes proceedings against second accused.

The court quashed proceedings against the second accused, ruling that only the individual who issued the bounced cheque could be held liable under the Negotiable Instrument Act. Transferred between courts due to jurisdictional issues, the case emphasized individual liability. The judgment directed the trial court to expedite proceedings, enabling the complainant to pursue legal remedies against other accused parties.

---

---

Issues:
1. Liability of the second accused in a case under Negotiable Instrument Act.
2. Jurisdiction and transfer of the case between different courts.
3. Quashing of proceedings against the second accused.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a complaint under Section 138, 141, and 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The respondent alleged that the second accused, who was the proprietor of the first accused firm, was liable for a bounced cheque issued by the third accused, the husband of the second accused. The second accused contended that she should not be prosecuted as the cheque was issued by her husband in his individual capacity.

2. The case was transferred multiple times between different courts due to jurisdictional reasons. Initially, it was with Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Coimbatore, then transferred to Judicial Magistrate, Udumalpet, and re-transferred to Fast Track Court, Coimbatore. The court acknowledged these transfers and the amendments to the Negotiable Instrument Act but did not dispute the facts presented.

3. The court held that only the person who issued the cheque in their personal capacity could be held responsible for its dishonor. As the cheque was issued by the third accused, the husband of the second accused, the proceedings against the second accused were quashed. The court allowed the petition to the extent of quashing the proceedings against the second accused alone, emphasizing that the trial court should address the liability of the other accused parties. The trial court was directed to expedite the case, allowing the complainant to assert their rights through legal means.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on clarifying the liability of the accused parties under the Negotiable Instrument Act, addressing jurisdictional transfers, and ultimately quashing the proceedings against the second accused while directing the trial court to proceed with the case efficiently.

---