[ DELHI HIGH COURT ]

JASWEEN SANDHU Vs STATE CRLMC 437/19 06/09/22 [ SUDHIR JJ ]

 

 

Section 482 CRPC NI ACT Section 13 Quashing the criminal complaint Dishonour of cheque Plea that complaint is perverse and does not disclose any lawful liability or debt towards the petitioner and petitioner is not the drawer of the cheque in question Since liability regarding dishonour of cheque in question cannot be fastened on the petitioner, so impugned order against the petitioner cannot be sustained, as such impugned order is set aside qua the petitioner only Petition allowed.

5. The petitioner challenged impugned order on the grounds that present complaint is perverse and does not disclose any lawful liability or debt towards the petitioner. The petitioner is not the drawer of the cheque in question. The trial court misdirected itself while passing the impugned order. The petitioner is not a joint account holder or vicariously liable with Amrit Sandhu Coster. The cheque in question was not issued by the petitioner but was issued by the sister of the petitioner namely Amrit Sandhu Coster. It was prayed that impugned order be set aside.

8. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial court committed a grave error while passing the impugned order as the petitioner is not the drawer and signatory of the cheque in question. The account from which cheque in question was issued does not belong to the petitioner. The petitioner has been wrongly impleaded as an accused. The petitioner cannot be made liable vicariously with Amrit Sandhu Coster. The petitioner was arrayed as accused No. 2 as per sections 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881which are not applicable in present case. Amrit Sandhu Coster who is the petitioner in Crl.M.C. bearing no 556/2019 has admitted in notice given under section 251 of the Code that she was the signatory of the cheque and has handed over the cheque in question to the respondent no 2 in the year 2011 and issued stop payment instructions to the banker in the year 2011. The counsel for thepetitioner relied on Alka Khandu Avhad V Amar Syamprasad Mishra and another, AIR 2021 SC 1616 and Aprna A Shah V M/s Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd. &another, (2013) 8SCC71.

15. The case of the respondent no 2 is that the petitioner and Amrit Sandhu Coster in discharge of their liability towards the respondent no 2 handed over cheque in question and promised that the said cheque would be obliged on presentation to discharge their legally enforceable debt.However, the petitioner is not drawer of the cheque in question which is issued and signed by the Amrit Sandhu Coster who is sister of the petitioner and is petitioner in petition bearing no 556/2019. The petitioner is not holder of account bearing no 90112010051035 in Syndicate Bank and is not operational in the name of the petitioner but is operational in name of Amrit Sandhu Coster. Amrit Sandhu Coster in notice under section 251 also admitted that she issued the cheque in question to the respondent no 2 in the year 2011 for my food court business vide proceedings dated 06.02.2019. The liability regarding dishonouring of cheque in question cannot be fastened on the petitioner.

 

(Adv Vaibhav Tomar )All Rights Reserved

CLICK BELOW READ THE JUDGEMENT

Jasween Sandhu vs state of NCT & Ors-Judgment-Delhi High Court