Joint complaint under the NI Act and CrPC not maintainable where separate cheque causes of action arise.
A joint complaint by more than one complainant was held not maintainable under the Code of Criminal Procedure, because the term "complainant" in Section 200 was read in light of the statutory scheme, which does not contemplate multiple complainants in a single complaint. The same interpretation was applied to Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act: Sections 138, 141, 142 and 143 were treated as supporting a complaint by a single person, not a joint complaint. A joint dishonour memo and joint demand notice did not change this position, since each cheque issued in favour of a different person gave rise to a separate cause of action. Proceedings survived only for the cheque relating to one complainant.
Issues: Whether a joint complaint by more than one complainant against an accused is maintainable under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Negotiable Instruments Act, and whether the complaint could survive only in respect of the cheque issued in favour of one complainant.
Analysis: The Court noted conflicting views of different High Courts on the question of a joint complaint. It preferred the line of authority holding that the expression "complainant" in Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not, by context, include multiple complainants. The Court relied on the scheme of the Code, including provisions dealing with separate charges and the consequences of absence, death, or withdrawal of a complainant, to hold that the Code does not contemplate a joint complaint by two or more persons. The Court further held that the same reasoning applies to prosecutions under Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act, since Sections 138, 141, 142 and 143 indicate a complaint by a single person and do not support a joint complaint. The existence of a joint dishonour memo and joint demand notice did not alter the position, because each cheque issued in favour of a different person gave rise to a separate cause of action.
Conclusion: A joint complaint by two or more persons was held to be not maintainable, but the proceedings were allowed to continue in respect of the cheque issued in favour of one complainant while the proceedings relating to the cheque issued in favour of the other complainant were quashed.
Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded only in part, with limited quashing confined to one segment of the complaint and the remaining proceedings preserved for continuation before the trial court.
Ratio Decidendi: The statutory use of the term "complainant" in this context is to be read according to the scheme of the Code and the Negotiable Instruments Act, which do not envisage a joint complaint by multiple persons where separate causes of action arise in their favour.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
