Charanjeet Singh v. Kulwant Singh
! "!#$ %
& !( $ ) ! "!#$ %
! "#$#%&
*+ , *
-./
01 !, , -./
, , -./
% '
(
2 ##' '/, % )
, # #,
34$/- +'/ )-
+, 2% % '%! 5 , # !-67 0 8 91+ :!
,%# ' ;6 6 #'Kulwant Singh vs. Jasbir Kaur and another' ! 5 ; '# < !, . - 55 0 8;<. 91 $## !,,
66 0.3! 1% ')# &! #
# -
, ##!':! % ,
*#)- - ## -
)- 5-
%% % #)# 7--= 3% '!.
,
# - %,
! , , .%#- 62% +% # ) % ), # '!
!# ,
#)-! :!' 7
6 ,! 7--= 4$/- %
, - !/,,
6$ , +8!! 9 !':! #)- #
7 6$ / 4$/- $ #
#') !# %
!#) ,& . #)- !,!,
7 6$ ! !# # % ,! %!#
%- ,%# 0!% 1$ > !# inter alia
:!$ !')& ! $ 0% 1!
!/- :!$ /:! /') < "
!- ! )$#
!,,
< "
! ,! :! / ')& !')## ,"!#$ 4$/-
$ :!- ,%# ,
'#
,2% #)'!,,') #! ' !# ! -$ :!$ $-
#)$ $?! ##-
! , & %/ ;<.
##$!
!, , ,%# *
, )- !,$ ! 7 6-$') )%
,/ ,,, '
+> !#%# #
! , ') 49'# !%,! Alka Khandu Avhad vs. Amar Syamprasad Misra and another 2021(2) R.C.R.(Crl.) 286- Mrs. Aparna A. Shah vs. M/s Sheth Developers Private Limited and another (2013) 4 SCC(Cri) 241-Suman Sethi vs. Ajay K. Churiwal 200(1) R.C.R.(Crl.) 780 M.s Rahul Builders vs. M/s Arihant Fertilisers & Chemicals and another. Per contra # !# % !',
# #! !#) %%# ! #, ,
%# ' $#!,, /- :! #
! #) # ') % $ . !- ') ! $ / !# % %!
- %
:!0.3! 1$ $ ! #)#') $4$/- #) ')& ! 7 . $&! * 49'# !%,! Mrs. Aparna A.
Shah (supra)%
%!
#)'
$
:!-$:!
:!,! ' ') ,
!
&!
/ ,- ##$ $ # "8. In order to constitute an offence under Section 5 of the N.I. Act, this Court, in Jugesh Sehgal v. Shamsher Singh Gogi, 2009(3) RCR (Criminal) 712 : 2009(4) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 432 : (2009) 14 SCC 683, noted the following ingredients which are required to be fulfilled : (i) a person must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by him in a bank for payment of a certain amount of money to another person from out of that account;
xxx xxx xxx Considering the language used in Section and taking note of background agreement pursuant to which a cheque is issued by more t han one person, we are of the view that it is only the "drawer" of the
cheque who can be made liable for the penal action under the provisions of the N.I. Act. It is settled law that strict interpretation is required to be given to penal statutes.
xxx xxx xxx
22. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that under Section 5 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 examination7in7 chief of the complainant and a bare look at the cheque would show that the appellant has not signed the cheque.
23. We also hold that under Section 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 of the N.I. Act which would have no application in the case on hand. The proceedings filed under Section 5 cannot be used as an arm twisting tactics to recover the amount allegedly due from the appellant. It cannot be said that the complainant has no remedy against the appellant but certainly not under Section
5. The culpability attached to dishonour of a cheque can, in no case "except in case of Section 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 5 of the Act." 0,% 1 5 ?! ,-
/!%& 50'1;<. ##$ Section 138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.
xxx xxx xxx (b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice; in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and < # $
/ sine qua non
,%# ! 5;<. 2 ' :!, /, %% !
# '
', #%
,.!- ', ## ,,%
!
!
## )
#%
! - !,
+ '# , @# 50'1 ;< . %) / # - ! /#+
$ ! , % 2, !- ,#), #
! ,% ?! ##- ,,:!
:!$ ! 6 #
##)!7 6-$/- 01- !- / $!#/
% !
,! '###
# )2 ,- !,$ ! 7 6A/ + !, - !, '/ #- ! # % )% %!#
')
6 < /$ ! '/- ' '/ , 01 ##$. #)- ,%# ' ;6 6
#'Kulwant Singh vs. Jasbir Kaur and another' ! 5 ; '#< !, . -550 8;<. 91 $## !,,
66 0.3! 1% ')# &! #
# -
, ##!':! % , :!
:!
01 ,## ! %%#
01- )- ## #
% (
) @ % = B=; @ %
'# B=;