https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303156 The court held that the petitioner, not being the signatory of the cheque in question, could not be prosecuted under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. As the drawer of the cheque was identified as respondent No. 2, the liability under section 138 fell solely on him. Consequently, the petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was granted, leading to the quashing of proceedings against the petitioner in Criminal Complaint Case No. 1418/2010. en-us Mon, 20 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Jul 2022 22:00:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303156 The court held that the petitioner, not being the signatory of the cheque in question, could not be prosecuted under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. As the drawer of the cheque was identified as respondent No. 2, the liability under section 138 fell solely on him. Consequently, the petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was granted, leading to the quashing of proceedings against the petitioner in Criminal Complaint Case No. 1418/2010. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 20 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303156