https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784064 A joint complaint under s.138 NI Act covering dishonour of two cheques issued in favour of two distinct payees was held impermissible, since each dishonour constitutes a separate offence and neither the NI Act nor CrPC provides for joinder enabling multiple complainants to prosecute within a single complaint; consequently, proceedings relating to the cheque issued to the second payee were quashed with liberty to file an independent complaint. Invocation of an arbitration clause was held not to bar prosecution because civil and criminal proceedings may run concurrently on separate causes of action and the accused had not pursued arbitration; therefore, the s.138 proceeding for the cheque issued to the remaining complainant was allowed to continue. The complaint was also held not premature as it was filed after expiry of the statutory period from first receipt of demand notice. en-us Tue, 16 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Dec 2025 08:56:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784064 A joint complaint under s.138 NI Act covering dishonour of two cheques issued in favour of two distinct payees was held impermissible, since each dishonour constitutes a separate offence and neither the NI Act nor CrPC provides for joinder enabling multiple complainants to prosecute within a single complaint; consequently, proceedings relating to the cheque issued to the second payee were quashed with liberty to file an independent complaint. Invocation of an arbitration clause was held not to bar prosecution because civil and criminal proceedings may run concurrently on separate causes of action and the accused had not pursued arbitration; therefore, the s.138 proceeding for the cheque issued to the remaining complainant was allowed to continue. The complaint was also held not premature as it was filed after expiry of the statutory period from first receipt of demand notice. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 16 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784064