Petitioner acquitted in cheque bounce case; prosecution deemed illegal.

The petitioner in Crl. P. No. 5676 of 2012 was found not liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as she was not directly involved in the issuance of the dishonored cheque. The court ruled the prosecution against her as illegal and quashed the proceedings. However, the trial against accused Nos. 1 and 2 was permitted to continue.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the petitioner in Crl. P. No. 5676 of 2012 can be prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Whether the necessary averments constituting the offence under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are present in the complaint.
3. Whether the liability had arisen as on the date of issuance of the cheque dated November 1, 2009.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The petitioner in Crl. P. No. 5676 of 2012 is accused No. 3 in C. C. No. 26221 of 2011. The complainant, Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd., initiated proceedings based on an advertising agreement dated February 23, 2009, with M/s. IDEB Parkway Holdings P. Ltd. and M/s. IDEB PSB Estates P. Ltd. The agreement stipulated that if the company failed to obtain an NOC from HDFC and register the definitive documentation by October 31, 2009, it would pay Rs. 4,00,00,000 to BCCL by November 3, 2009. The complainant alleged that a cheque issued by a subsidiary of IDEB group was dishonored due to "funds insufficient," leading to action under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner argued that she was neither a party to the agreement nor a signatory to the cheque, and thus, her prosecution was illegal. The court found that the petitioner, being a director, could not be deemed guilty under Section 138 solely on this ground, especially as she was not involved in the issuance of the cheque.

2. Necessary Averments under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The complainant contended that necessary averments constituting offences under Sections 138 and 141 of the Act were present in the complaint, stating that the petitioner was a director responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the company. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Standard Chartered Bank v. State of Maharashtra, which emphasized that specific averments are required to prosecute directors under Section 141. The court concluded that the complaint lacked sufficient material to show that the petitioner was aware of or consented to the issuance of the cheque, and merely reproducing the ingredients of Section 141(2) was insufficient to establish criminal liability.

3. Liability as on the Date of Issuance of the Cheque:
The court noted that the liability under the agreement would arise only after November 3, 2009, while the cheque was issued on November 1, 2009. The complaint itself acknowledged that the obligations under the agreement had to be fulfilled by November 3, 2009. Therefore, as of the cheque issuance date, no liability had arisen. The court emphasized that without a subsisting debt or liability on November 1, 2009, the petitioner could not be held liable for the dishonor of the cheque.

Conclusion:
The prosecution of the petitioner in Crl. P. No. 5676 of 2012 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was deemed illegal and an abuse of the process of the court. The proceedings against her were quashed. However, the trial against accused Nos. 1 and 2 was allowed to proceed in accordance with the law.

Order:
Crl. P. No. 5676 of 2012 is allowed.
Crl. P. No. 6875 of 2012 is dismissed.
The proceedings in C. C. No. 26221 of 2011 are quashed only concerning Mrs. Avneet Bedi (accused No. 3).
The trial shall proceed against accused Nos. 1 and 2.

---