The Delhi High Court in a bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Chawla allowed a petition seeking quashing of a complaint as far as the petitioners herein are concerned. The Court observed that though, it may be true that the cheque is in discharge of the alleged liability of Petitioner No. 1, it is only Mr. Satish Gupta who can be prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Brief Facts:
The Petitioner No. 1 and the Respondent, who is the complainant, were partners of Petitioner No. 2, a partnership firm. Petitioner No. 1 and the Respondent decided to part ways, and with this intent, executed a Memorandum of Understanding dated 18.11.2019. In terms of the above MOU, Petitioner No. 1 handed over the post-dated cheques issued by her husband, namely, Mr. Satish Gupta, to the Respondent. As the cheques were returned unpaid and the notice issued also did not bring about the desired result, the respondent filed the above-mentioned complaint not only against Mr. Satish Gupta but also against the Petitioners herein.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that it is only the drawer of the cheque who would be liable to be prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. He submitted that even assuming that the cheques had been given in discharge of a legal liability of Petitioner No. 1, Petitioner No. 1 cannot be arrayed as an accused in the complaint. He contended that, in any case, the MOU, pursuant to which the PDCs have been issued, was only between Petitioner No. 1 and the respondent and, therefore, Petitioner No. 2 has been wrongly arrayed as an accused in the said Complaint.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the cheques in question were given in discharge of the liability of Petitioner No. 1. He argued that, therefore, Petitioner No. 1 is a proper party to be impleaded as an accused in the complaint. He contended that Section 141 of the Act has also been rightly invoked by the respondent.
The Court observed that the cheques in question have been given from the personal account of Mr. Satish Gupta, the husband of Petitioner No. 1. Though, it may be true that it is in discharge of the alleged liability of Petitioner No. 1, it is only Mr. Satish Gupta who can be prosecuted under Section 138 of the Act. Section 141 of the Act can also not be invoked as the cheques were not given for the discharge of liability of the partnership firm or from its bank account.
The Decision of the Court:
The Delhi High Court, allowing the petition, held that the Complaint and the order summoning the petitioners were quashed qua the petitioners.
Case Title: Shikha Gupta & Anr. v Anish Gupta
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Navin Chawla
Case No.: CRL.M.C. 2802/2022 & CRL.M.A. 11577/2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Anuj Saxena
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Satish Kumar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :