Manjulakshmi vs Moorthi
2026 Latest Caselaw 1318 Mad

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 1318 Mad
Judgement Date : 16 March, 2026

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Manjulakshmi vs Moorthi on 16 March, 2026

Author: R.Vijayakumar

Bench: R.Vijayakumar

                                                                                    Crl.O.P.(MD)No.23880 of 2025

                       BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                    DATED: 16.03.2026

                                                          CORAM:

                                  THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

                                          Crl.O.P.(MD)No.23880 of 2025
                                                      and
                                     Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.20752 and 20753 of 2025


                    Manjulakshmi                                                        ... Petitioner/
                                                                                            Accused No.2


                                                               Vs.


                    Moorthi                                                             ... Respondent/
                                                                                            Complainant


                    Prayer : This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 B.N.S.S.,
                    to call for the records pertaining to S.T.C.No.626 of 2025 on the file
                    learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Usilampatti, for alleged offences under
                    Sections 138 & 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, and quash the
                    same as so far as the petitioner is concerned.


                                   For Petitioner       : Mr.M.A.M.Raja

                                   For Respondent       : M/s.A.S.Rajeswari


                    1/8



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis               ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 06:47:25 pm )
                                                                                      Crl.O.P.(MD)No.23880 of 2025




                                                            ORDER

The present petition has been filed by the second accused in

S.T.C.No.626 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2,

Usilampatti seeking to quash the private complaint filed under Section 138

of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the

cheque which was alleged to have been dishonored arises out of a joint

account in the name of the first accused and the second accused, namely,

R.Ramesh and R.Manjulakshmi. The second accused, who is the petitioner

herein, has not signed the cheque, though it is a joint account. Therefore,

the ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act have not

been attracted. Hence, the petitioner has sought to quash the private

complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also relied upon

a decision of this Court in Crl.O.P.No.3400 of 2020 dated 22.06.2022

(R.Chamundeswari Vs. M/s.Housing Development Finance Corporation

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 06:47:25 pm ) Crl.O.P.(MD)No.23880 of 2025

Ltd., by its Legal Officer Shareen Velloath), wherein, this Court was

pleased to quash the private complaint.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that

though it is a joint account and it is signed only by the first accused, unless

trial is conducted, it cannot be established what is the role of the petitioner

in issuance of the cheque. She further submitted that the petitioner is

known to the respondent / complainant for so many years and believing

her, they have received the cheque. In such circumstances, unless the

petitioner is directed to face the trial, the respondent / complainant would

be put to great hardship.

5. Heard both sides and perused the records.

6. A perusal of the cheque clearly reveals that it is a joint account

standing in the name of R.Ramesh and R.Manjulakshmi. Admittedly, it has

been signed only by the first accused R.Ramesh and not by the present

petitioner R.Manjulakshmi.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 06:47:25 pm ) Crl.O.P.(MD)No.23880 of 2025

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in 2013 (8)

SCC 71 (Aparna A.Shah Vs. M/s.Sheth Developers Private Limited and

another) in Paragraph Nos.27 and 28 has held as follows:

“27. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that under Section 138 of the Act, it is only the drawer of the cheque who can be prosecuted. In the case on hand, admittedly, the appellant is not a drawer of the cheque and she has not signed the same. A copy of the cheque was brought to our notice, though it contains name of the appellant and her husband, the fact remains that her husband alone put his signature. In addition to the same, a bare reading of the complaint as also the affidavit of examination-in- chief of the complainant and a bare look at the cheque would show that the appellant has not signed the cheque.

28. We also hold that under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, in case of issuance of cheque from joint accounts, a joint account holder cannot be prosecuted unless the cheque has been signed by each and every person who is a joint account holder. The said principle is an exception to Section 141 of the N.I. Act which would have no application in the case on hand. The proceedings filed under Section 138 cannot be used as an arm twisting tactics to recover the amount allegedly due from the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 06:47:25 pm ) Crl.O.P.(MD)No.23880 of 2025

appellant. It cannot be said that the complainant has no remedy against the appellant but certainly not under Section 138. The culpability attached to dishonour of a cheque can, in no case “except in case of Section 141 of the N.I. Act” be extended to those on whose behalf the cheque is issued. This Court reiterates that it is only the drawer of the cheque who can be made an accused in any proceeding under Section 138 of the Act. Even the High Court has specifically recorded the stand of the appellant that she was not the signatory of the cheque but rejected the contention that the amount was not due and payable by her solely on the ground that the trial is in progress. It is to be noted that only after issuance of process, a person can approach the High Court seeking quashing of the same on various grounds available to him. Accordingly, the High Court was clearly wrong in holding that the prayer of the appellant cannot even be considered. Further, the High Court itself has directed the Magistrate to carry out the process of admission/denial of documents. In such circumstances, it cannot be concluded that the trial is in advanced stage.”

8. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear

that though it is a joint account, unless it is signed by one of the joint

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 06:47:25 pm ) Crl.O.P.(MD)No.23880 of 2025

account holders, proceedings cannot be initiated under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act and the same cannot be used as an arm

twisting tactics to recover the amount allegedly due from the petitioner.

Therefore, the petitioner cannot be held liable for the offence punishable

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

9. In view of the above, proceedings in S.T.C.No.626 of 2025 on the

file of the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Usilampatti for the alleged offence

under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act stands

quashed in so far as the second accused alone, who is the petitioner herein.