Independent Cause of Action in cheque dishonour complaints upheld despite same transaction and procedural objections.

A separate Section 138 complaint is maintainable for dishonour of a distinct cheque, even where the cheques arise from the same transaction or agreement, because each dishonour gives rise to an independent cause of action. In process proceedings, the complainant may rely on an affidavit under Section 145, and the complaint, verification affidavit and supporting material can be sufficient for prima facie satisfaction without witness examination at that stage; the noted objection under Section 202 was rejected. Territorial jurisdiction in cheque dishonour cases is governed by Section 142A, and filing complaints at different places does not by itself show lack of jurisdiction where jurisdiction otherwise lies with the branch of the payee bank. The process order was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a separate complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is maintainable for dishonour of a distinct cheque arising out of the same transaction and agreement; (ii) Whether absence of witness examination at the stage of process, in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, vitiates the inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (iii) Whether the complaint was liable to be interfered with on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction under Section 142A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Issue (i): Whether a separate complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is maintainable for dishonour of a distinct cheque arising out of the same transaction and agreement.

Analysis: Independent dishonour of a cheque gives rise to an independent cause of action. The mere fact that the cheques arise out of the same agreement or transaction does not, by itself, make a complaint under Section 138 non-maintainable when the ingredients of the offence are otherwise made out.

Conclusion: The challenge to maintainability failed and the complaint was held maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether absence of witness examination at the stage of process, in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, vitiates the inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: In a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the complainant may adduce evidence by affidavit under Section 145. The material placed before the Magistrate, including the complaint and verification affidavit, was sufficient for prima facie satisfaction. The order did not show that inquiry under Section 202 was absent, and the alleged defect did not warrant interference at the stage of issuance of process.

Conclusion: The objection based on Section 202 was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the complaint was liable to be interfered with on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction under Section 142A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: Territorial jurisdiction in a cheque dishonour prosecution is governed by Section 142A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The filing of complaints at different places, by itself, did not establish want of jurisdiction where jurisdiction otherwise followed the branch of the payee bank.

Conclusion: The objection to territorial jurisdiction was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The petition was devoid of merit and the process order was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A dishonour of each cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 gives rise to an independent cause of action, and in the absence of a clear jurisdictional or procedural illegality, the Magistrate may issue process on the basis of the complaint and supporting affidavit.

---