TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the complaint and summoning order in respect of the second set of cheques issued on behalf of the firm were liable to be quashed as an abuse of process when the complainant had already elected to present the personal guarantee cheques for the same transaction; (ii) Whether petitioner no. 2, being only a joint account holder and not a signatory to the cheques, could be prosecuted under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Issue (i): Whether the complaint and summoning order in respect of the second set of cheques issued on behalf of the firm were liable to be quashed as an abuse of process when the complainant had already elected to present the personal guarantee cheques for the same transaction.
Analysis: The complaints disclosed that two cheques were first issued from the personal joint account as a personal guarantee and were presented by the complainant before the firm cheques were deposited. The court found that the later complaint concerning the firm cheques did not disclose the earlier presentation and dishonour of the personal guarantee cheques, although they arose from the same transaction and were intended as an alternative mode of recovery. In these circumstances, continuation of the later complaint would amount to permitting multiple proceedings on the same liability and would be an abuse of process.
Conclusion: The complaint and summoning order relating to the firm cheques were quashed.
Issue (ii): Whether petitioner no. 2, being only a joint account holder and not a signatory to the cheques, could be prosecuted under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Analysis: Liability under Section 138 attaches to the drawer of the cheque, and joint account-holder liability cannot be fastened in the absence of signature and issuance of the cheque by that person. The record showed that petitioner no. 2 was neither a party to the underlying transaction nor a signatory to the personal guarantee cheques, and no factual basis existed to invoke vicarious liability against her merely because she was a joint account holder.
Conclusion: Petitioner no. 2 could not be prosecuted, and the complaint and summoning order were quashed against her.
Final Conclusion: The judgment partially intervened under inherent jurisdiction by quashing one complaint in full and quashing the other only to the extent of petitioner no. 2, while allowing the prosecution to continue against petitioner no. 1 in the remaining complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a complainant has already elected to act on one set of cheques issued as an alternative or personal guarantee for the same transaction, a later prosecution on another set of cheques for the same liability may amount to abuse of process; further, a person who is neither the drawer nor the signatory of the cheque cannot be prosecuted under Section 138 merely because of joint account status.
TaxTMI 
