It is really good to learn that the Meghalaya High Court has in a most learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment titled HDFC Bank Ltd Mawlai Nonglum Branch & Anr v Sri Baklai Siej & Anr in Crl.Petn. No. 16 of 2021 with Crl.Petn. No. 18 of 2021 pronounced as recently as on May 13, 2022 has reiterated that for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to be made out, the dishonoured cheque must have been issued by the account holder under his name and signature. Justice W Diengdoh noted that only the holder of the account on which the cheque is drawn could be made liable and such culpability cannot be extended to others except as provided under Section 141 NI Act which deals with offences by and on behalf of the company or partnership, where the signatory to the cheque may be a Director of the company or a partner of a partnership firm. Very rightly so!
To start with, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by a single Judge Bench comprising of Justice W Dienddoh of Meghalaya High Court queers the pitch in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “Two similar petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C have been preferred before this Court by the HDFC Bank Ltd. Mawlai Nonglum Branch, Shillong along with the Branch Manager of the said bank and another by the HDFC Bank Ltd. Shillong Branch, Police Bazar, Shillong also along with the Branch Manager of the said bank. The grievance is directed against a common order dated 16.12.2020, passed by the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, (JMFC) Shillong which is impugned in both the petitions, it is therefore deemed fit and convenient that the two petitions may be taken up together and to be disposed of by this common judgment and order.”
As we see, the Bench then discloses in para 2 that, “The respondent No. 1 has filed a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 primarily against the respondent No. 2 for an alleged case of cheque bouncing, which cheque for ₹ 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) only dated 27.10.2020 bearing No. 000014 drawn on HDFC Bank, Mawlai Nonglum Branch was issued to him by the respondent No. 2 and on being presented at the bank of petitioner No. 2, in Crl. Petn. No. 18 of 2021 on 27.10.2020, the bank had accordingly transferred the fund to the respondent No. 1’s account on 29.10.2020.”
Going ahead, the Bench then states in para 3 that, “The respondent No.1 had then visited the bank of the respondent No. 2, that is, HDFC Bank, Police Bazar Branch, Shillong, it was found that the said amount of ₹ 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) only has been reverted back to the bank account of respondent No. 2 herein.”
Needless to say, the Bench then reveals in para 4 that, “Being aggrieved by the alleged action of the respondent No. 2 as well as the petitioner No. 2 herein, the respondent No. 1 has filed a complaint under Section 142 read with Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shillong with a prayer to initiate action against the accused persons therein under the said provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act.”
As it turned out, the Bench then notes in para 5 that, “The complaint was registered as C.R. Case No. 182(S) of 2020 and the learned JMFC on perusal of the statement of the respondent No. 1/complainant has directed that summons be issued to the accused persons therein, which included the petitioner No. 2 respectively in both the above-mentioned petitions.”
Of course, the Bench then observes in para 6 that, “Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order dated 16.12.2020, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the said above-mentioned petitions with a prayer to quash the criminal proceedings against them.”
Frankly speaking, the Bench then stipulates in para 12 that, “The essential ingredients of the offence can be said to be the following:-(i) that a cheque was drawn by a person on an account maintained by him for payment of money to another for the discharge of any debts or liabilities;
(ii) that the said cheque has been presented to the bank of the drawee within a period of three months;
(iii) that the cheque was returned by the bank unpaid due to insufficiency of funds or that it exceeds that amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made by the bank.
(iv) that the payee makes a demand for the payment of the money from the drawer of the said cheque, such demand being made within fifteen days from the date that said cheque was refused to be honoured; and
(v) that the drawer fails to make payment to the payee within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice.”
As a corollary, the Bench then notes in para 13 that, “From the above, what can be observed is that for an offence under Section 138 to be made out a cheque has to be issued by the account holder under his name and signature. It is clear that only the holder of the account on which the cheque is drawn can be made liable and such culpability cannot be extended to others except as provided under Section 141 N.I. Act which deals with offences by and on behalf of the company or partnership, where the signatory to the cheque may be a Director of the company or a Partner of a partnership firm.”
Most significantly, while citing the relevant case law, the Bench then minces no words to state unambiguously in para 14 that, “In the case of Alka Khandu Afhad (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph 16 has observed that only a person who is the signatory to his cheque and such cheque having been returned by the bank unpaid can be said to have committed an offence under Section 138 N.I Act. This section does not speak about joint liability, even in case of a joint liability, in case of individual persons, a person other than a person who has drawn a cheque on an account maintained by him cannot be persecuted for an offence under Section 138 N.I. Act, unless the bank account is jointly maintained and that he was a signatory to the cheque.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench then while setting the record straight minces just no words to clarify in para 15 that, “In the present case, the petitioner/HDFC Bank has been made a party by the complainant/respondent No. 1 where no role can be attributed to the bank as far as the issuance or the dishonour of the cheque in question is concerned. The bank is only the custodian of the money of the customers and has to comply with the instructions of such customers. In case of insufficiency of funds, the bank is only to report the same and as such, cannot by any stretch of the imagination be liable for any act of the customer who has issued the cheque which was later dishonoured.”
Be it noted, the Bench then specifies in para 16 that, “Viewed thus, this Court finds that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shillong has failed to appreciate the facts and the provisions of law and has unnecessarily put the petitioner to great hardship by issuing of process. In this regard the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors: (1998) 5 SCC 749 at paragraph 28 has observed as follows: -“28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused”.”
Most remarkably, the Bench then observes in para 17 that, “In the light of the above, the petitions under consideration finds merit before this Court and the same is accordingly allowed. Consequently, the proceeding as against the petitioner/HDFC Bank in C.R. Case No. 182(S) of 2020 under Sections 138 and 142 N.I Act, 1881 pending before the Court of the learned JMFC, Shillong is hereby set aside and quashed. It is made clear that the Court may proceed against the accused No. 1 therein in accordance with law.”
Finally, the Bench then concludes by directing in last para 18 that, “Petitions disposed of by this common judgment and order. No cost.”
All told, the Meghalaya High Court has taken the most balanced and pragmatic stand in this notable judgment that dishonoured cheque must have been issued by the account holder under his name and sign for an offence to be made out. All the courts in similar such cases must similarly abide by what has been laid down by the Meghalaya High Court in this leading case! There can be just no denying or disputing it! Sanjeev Sirohi
