VIKAS CHUDIWALA Vs. R. RAVINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue that is involved in the present case was captured in the earlier Order passed by this Court on 9/1/2024 and the same is extracted hereunder:

(2.) When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner brought to the Notice of this Court, the Judgment in N. Gopalan v. K. Udhayakumar, 2009 (4) CTC 217. In this Judgment, it is seen that the Wife was the Proprietorix of the Proprietary Concern and she had authorised her husband to sign the Cheques and therefore, the Husband was the Authorised Signatory. The Cheque was dishonoured and both the husband and Wife were added as A1 & A2 in C.C. No.2978 of 2013. The learned Single Judge came to a conclusion that the prosecution under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to 'the NI Act') can be made only against the Drawer of the Cheque, who was maintaining an account and admittedly, the account was maintained in the name of the Proprietorix. Therefore, this Court found that the Authorised Signatory cannot be made as an Accused and quashed the Complaint in so far as the husband is concerned. While passing this Judgment, this Court relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in Raghu Lakshminarayanan v. Fine Tubes, 2007 (5) SCC 103.

(3.) In a subsequent Judgment that was passed in the case of P. Saravana Kumar v. S.P. Vijaya Kumar, 2022 (2) MWN (Cr.) DCC 19 : 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 1387, another learned Single Judge has taken a contrary view and has held that the Complaint is maintainable as against the Proprietor as well as the Authorised Signatory. The learned Single Judge was not in agreement with the earlier Judgment passed in N. Gopalan's case referred supra. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the earlier Judgment was rendered on a wrong understanding of the Judgment of the Apex Court in Raghu Lakshminarayanan's case referred supra.