TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 1589
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in the complaint that an amount of Rs. 17,00,000/ was outstanding against the petitioner as cost of the work executed by the respondents. The petitioner is stated to have issued three cheques, out of which two cheques for an amount of Rs. 6.00 lacs and Rs. 5.00 lacs were issued in favour of respondent No. 1-Jameel Ahmad Bhat whereas one cheque for an amount of Rs. 6.00 lacs was issued in favour of respondent No. 2-Mohammad Rafiq Bhat. These cheques, when presented for encashment by the respondents were returned unpaid for the reason of insufficiency of funds by the banker of the petitioner/accused and in this regard a joint memo of dishonor dated 14.11.2018 was issued by the bank. The respondents, through their counsel, served a joint legal notice of demand dated 28.11.2018 upon the petitioner but despite receipt of the same, the petitioner failed to discharge his liability within the stipulated period of time which prompted the respondents to file the impugned complaint before the trial Magistrate. 3) The only ground which has been urged by the petitioner for impugning the complaint and the proceedings emanating therefrom is that a joint complai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mplated under the Code, the filing of a joint complaint and acting upon such a complaint would at best amount to an irregularity and not an illegality vitiating the proceedings. No provision in the Code has been brought to my notice to sustain the contention that a joint complaint is envisaged under the Code. A similar contention urged before the Madras High Court in Narayanaswamy v. Egappa, 1962 (2) Cr. L.J. 616 was accepted by his Lordship Sadashivam J Dealing with this question, this is what the learned Judge has observed in paragraph 2 of the judgment: "Under Section 233 Cr. P.C. for each distinct offence of which any person is accused, there should be a separate charge and the exceptions are contained in the subsequent sections. There is no provision in the said section dealing with joinder of charges authorising two or more complainants to file a single complaint. If the authors of the Code of Criminal Procedure contemplated such filing of joint complaints, they would have clearly made provision for them corresponding to Order 1 Rule 1 C.P.C. providing for joinder of plaintiffs in civil suits. On the other hand, the provisions like Section 247 I.P.C., in summons case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at a joint complaint by two or more persons against the accused is not maintainable. The Court, after noticing various provisions contained in the NI Act and relying upon the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Parijanashram Swamiji's case (supra), made certain observations, which are relevant to the context and the same are reproduced as under: "17) The reference to the complainant as a "person" in Section 138 of the Act, prima facie, indicates that Section 138 too envisages a complaint by a single person. Similarly, if we look at the provisions of Section 141 of the Act, which pertains to the offences by the companies, it also refers to a "person" committing an offence under Section 138. 18) Section 142, which lays down the procedure as to how the cognizance in a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Act is to be taken by the Court, also speaks of a complaint and not the complaints which would also indicate that it envisages only one complainant in a complaint and, therefore, rules out filing of a joint complaint by two or more than two persons. 19) As is provided under Section 143 of the Act, the cases under Section 138 of the Act are required t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Criminal Procedure for joinder of charges that would authorize two more complainants to file a single complaint, have not been taken into consideration while rendering the opinion that a joint complaint is maintainable. Similarly, provisions contained in Sections 256 and 257 of the Cr. P. C which provide for consequences for non-appearance or death of the complainant or withdrawal of the complaint respectively have also not been taken into consideration while rendering the opinion that a joint complaint is maintainable. In both these provisions expression used is 'complainant'. The situation where one of the two complainants dies or abstains from the proceedings has not been taken care of by any of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, which clearly infers that a joint complaint by more than one person is not envisaged by the Code. Likewise, Section 249 of the Cr. P. C, which provides for a situation regarding absence of the complainant in warrant trial cases, also does not take care of a situation where one of the complainants' remains absent, meaning thereby that a joint complaint is not envisaged in the provisions of the Code. 13) In view of what has been discussed....