Cheque dishonour liability requires the drawer's signature; proceedings against a non-signatory accused were quashed as abuse of process.

Liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act attaches to the person who draws and signs the cheque on the relevant account. A person who is neither the drawer nor the signatory cannot be prosecuted merely on the basis of an alleged underlying liability. The Court also held that Section 141, which concerns offences by companies, could not be extended to a private individual in the manner suggested. As the applicant's signature on the cheque was undisputed, the defect was apparent on the face of the complaint and continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process; the complaint was quashed qua the applicant.

---

---

Issues: Whether criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could continue against an accused who was not a signatory to the cheque, and whether the complaint was liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Analysis: Liability under Section 138 attaches to the person who draws the cheque on an account maintained by him and signs it. The Court followed the principle that a person who is neither the signatory to the cheque nor the drawer on the relevant account cannot be prosecuted merely because of an alleged liability. It further held that the complainant's attempt to rely on Section 141 did not assist, as that provision pertains to offences by companies and cannot be extended to private individuals in the manner suggested. Since the absence of the applicant's signature on the cheque was undisputed, the defect was apparent on the face of the complaint and the continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process.

Conclusion: The proceedings under Section 138 could not continue against the applicant, and the complaint was rightly quashed qua the applicant.

---