Joint complaint under Section 138 NI Act dismissed; one respondent can proceed. Fresh complaint allowed separately.

The court held that a joint complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not maintainable. The impugned complaint and proceedings were quashed concerning one respondent but allowed to proceed concerning the other. The court clarified that the dismissed respondent could file a fresh complaint separately. The court avoided giving the respondents the option to decide who would continue the complaint to prevent any benefit to the petitioner from their disagreement. No costs were awarded, and the judgment was directed to be sent to the trial court.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a joint complaint by two complainants under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is maintainable.
2. Whether the impugned order dismissing the application to quash the joint complaint was valid.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of Joint Complaint under Section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:

The petitioner challenged the maintainability of a joint complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, arguing that the Act does not envisage a joint complaint by two complainants. The respondents had filed a joint complaint alleging that the petitioner owed them Rs. 2,50,000 for land purchased and had issued four cheques, which were dishonored due to insufficient funds. The respondents served a common legal notice to the petitioner, who failed to pay the amount, leading to the filing of the joint complaint.

The petitioner contended that neither Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure nor Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act allows for a joint complaint. The petitioner cited various judgments, including those from the Karnataka and Madras High Courts, to support this view.

The respondents argued that in the absence of a specific bar under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a joint complaint is maintainable, especially when the cheques were issued to discharge a joint liability.

The court reviewed the legal position and found that judgments cited by the petitioner indicated that a joint complaint is not maintainable under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court examined Sections 138, 141, 142, and 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and concluded that these sections also envisage a complaint by a single person. The court noted that Chapter XVII of the Act, which includes Section 138, is not a complete code in itself and must be read in conjunction with the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. Validity of the Impugned Order:

The trial court had dismissed the petitioner's application to quash the joint complaint, stating that it lacked jurisdiction to review its order after taking cognizance of the complaint. The trial court relied on Supreme Court judgments in Adalat Prasad v. Roop Lal Jindal and Subramanium Sethuraman vs. State of Maharashtra.

The High Court held that while a joint complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not maintainable, the complaint need not be entirely quashed. Instead, it can proceed on behalf of one of the complainants, allowing the other complainant to seek remedies separately. The court cited the Karnataka High Court judgment in Haridas Naik and Ors. vs. Hanchinamane Gadriyappa and Ors., which supported this view.

Conclusion:

The petition was allowed in part. The impugned complaint and the proceedings thereon were quashed concerning respondent No.2, but the complaint was allowed to proceed concerning respondent No.1. The court clarified that respondent No.2 could file a fresh complaint following due process. The court chose not to give the respondents an option to decide who would continue the complaint to avoid any potential benefit to the petitioner from any disagreement between the respondents. No order as to costs was made, and a copy of the judgment was directed to be sent to the trial court.

---