BHASKARAIAH POTHUGUNTA Vs. PARTAP RUDRA DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for consideration in the instant petition is as to whether a person can be summoned and prosecuted for dishonor of a cheque under Sec. 138/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, on account of being a joint account holder with the drawer of the cheque?

(2.) This instant petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed for quashing of the Complaint No.NACT-1243 of 2016 instituted on 16/11/2016 (Annexure P-1) under Sec. 138/142 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 and summoning order dtd. 20/5/2017 (Annexure P-2) vide which the petitioners have been summoned under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra, District Kurukshetra, order dtd. 13/8/2018 (Annexure P-3), order dtd. 13/11/2018 (Annexure P-5) and order dtd. 30/8/2019 (Annexure P-11) alongwith all the consequential proceedings in the complaint (Annexure P-1) pending in the Court of JMIC, Kurukshetra.

(3.) The respondent-complainant filed a complaint against the petitioners along with the drawer of the cheque alleging that the petitioners being followers of ISKCON introduced themselves to the complainant as Directors of Vernasko and developed intimacy with the complainant. Taking benefit of the relationship, the petitioners-accused asked for financial assistance at which various sums of money was advanced by the complainant to the accused-petitioners herein. On money being demanded, two cheques bearing cheque no. 483230 dtd. 21/9/2016 drawn on ICICI bank for a sum of Rs.5,00,000.00 from the joint account by co-accused (non-petitioner) Suresh Pothugunta and another cheque bearing no. 055976 dtd. 28/9/2016 drawn on Bank of India for a sum of Rs.6,00,000.00 was also issued by co-accused (nonpetitioner) Suresh Pothugunta himself. Both the said cheques were returned dishonoured on presentation resulting in institution of the complaint. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are not the signatories on any of the cheques. Whilst the first cheque was from the joint account, the second cheque was from the individual account. The amount in question is not alleged to be advanced to the company