Only drawer liable for cheque bounce under Section 138 - Court quashes proceedings

The court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against the petitioner, who was not the signatory of the cheque but the wife of the drawer. Emphasizing the importance of the drawer's signature for liability, the court ruled that only the drawer can be prosecuted under Section 138. As the petitioner did not sign the cheque and was not the drawer, the proceedings were quashed, highlighting the necessity of the drawer's signature for prosecution under the Act.

---

---

Issues:
Quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act based on the authenticity of the cheque and the liability of the petitioner as the drawer.

Analysis:
The case involves a quash petition seeking to nullify criminal proceedings in C.C.No.35 of 2014 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The complainant alleged that the petitioner borrowed Rs. 3 lakhs and issued a cheque for repayment, which was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The petitioner denied being the signatory of the cheque, which was drawn by P.David Rajan from the current account of CANNAN CITY. The petitioner argued that only the drawer of the cheque can be prosecuted under Section 138, citing a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing the necessity of the drawer's signature for prosecution.

The respondent contended that the petitioner, despite not being the signatory, issued the cheque with dishonest intent to cheat. However, the petitioner's defense relied on the principle that joint account holders cannot be prosecuted under Section 138 unless all sign the cheque. The court referred to the Supreme Court judgment, clarifying that only the drawer of the cheque can be prosecuted, emphasizing the importance of the drawer's signature for liability under Section 138.

The court concluded that as the petitioner was not the signatory of the cheque and being the wife of the drawer, she cannot be considered the drawer herself. The cheque in question was signed by P.David Rajan, the husband of the petitioner, from the account of CANNAN CITY. Therefore, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner were quashed, as she could not be implicated under the provisions of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The judgment highlighted the necessity of the drawer's signature for prosecution under Section 138, ultimately leading to the quashing of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.

---