Misdescribed complainant name does not bar trial, but cheque prosecution fails when no legally enforceable liability remains.

A misdescription of the complainant's name did not, by itself, justify quashing where the record suggested the difference was only nomenclatural and the complainant could explain its locus standi at trial. However, proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could not survive because the cheque was found unsupported by any legally enforceable liability: the lease security deposit had already been paid, an eviction notice had been issued, and the cheque amount was subsequently returned by RTGS. The belated claim that the cheque represented fit-out damages was not borne out by the demand notice or parallel proceedings, so the complaint, summoning order, and connected proceedings were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the complaint was liable to be quashed on the ground that the complainant was misdescribed and had no privity with the petitioner; (ii) Whether the cheque dated 18.05.2023 was supported by a legally enforceable liability so as to sustain proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Issue (i): Whether the complaint was liable to be quashed on the ground that the complainant was misdescribed and had no privity with the petitioner.

Analysis: The documents showed that the lease arrangement, termination notice, cheque, and earlier proceedings were all in the name of Triangles Consolidated Ltd., while the complaint was filed in the name of Triangles Consolidated Pvt. Ltd. The discrepancy appeared to be a misdescription rather than a distinct legal entity dispute capable of being finally resolved at the quashing stage. The Court held that the complainant should be afforded an to explain its locus standi during trial.

Conclusion: The complaint was not quashed on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the cheque dated 18.05.2023 was supported by a legally enforceable liability so as to sustain proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The admitted material showed that a security deposit of Rs. 15 lakhs had been paid at the inception of the lease, that an eviction notice had been issued, and that the cheque amount was subsequently transferred back by RTGS on 06.06.2023. The Court found that the complainant had received Rs. 15 lakhs in respect of the cheque and that no legally enforceable liability survived. The belated plea that the amount represented damages for fit-outs was not supported by the demand notice or the parallel proceedings.

Conclusion: The cheque was not backed by a legally enforceable liability and the Section 138 proceedings could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The criminal complaint and all proceedings arising from it, including the summoning order, were set aside because the foundational liability for the cheque was absent.

Ratio Decidendi: A prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 cannot survive where the cheque amount has already been discharged and no legally enforceable liability remains; a mere nomenclatural discrepancy in the complainant's name will not by itself justify quashing if it is only a misdescription.

---