Case Law Details
Shashikala Jayaram Vs Appayappa (Karnataka High Court)
The case of Shashikala Jayaram vs. Appayappa in the Karnataka High Court revolves around criminal proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Accused No.1, the husband, issued a postdated cheque, leading to legal ramifications for both accused parties.
Detailed Analysis: The complainant alleges that, in early June 2023, he demanded repayment from the accused. In response, the accused promised to pay a specific amount, issuing a postdated cheque of Rs. 3,00,000 on July 26, 2023. However, the petitioner, accused No.2, is not the issuer of the cheque. The critical question arises: Can Section 138 proceedings be valid against a party who hasn’t issued the cheque?
Analyzing the legal stance, it’s evident that Section 138 of the Act applies exclusively to the person issuing the cheque. In this scenario, the petitioner’s inclusion in the proceedings becomes legally unsustainable. The complaint against both accused parties, despite the cheque originating from only one, raises concerns of procedural irregularities.
The crux lies in the fact that accused No.1, the husband, is the sole issuer of the cheque. Consequently, the petitioner, accused No.2, should be exempt from Section 138 proceedings. The proceedings against the petitioner lack a legal foundation, focusing solely on her association with the accused.
Conclusion: In light of the legal analysis, the proceedings against the petitioner, Shashikala Jayaram, should be quashed. Section 138 offenses can only be initiated against the person who issued the cheque, and in this case, it’s unequivocally accused No.1. The court should ensure adherence to legal principles, dismissing unsustainable charges against the petitioner. This case underscores the importance of precise legal proceedings, preventing undue harassment of parties not directly involved in the alleged offense.
Adv Rohit N Latur argued the matter on behalf of the accused wife.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
1. The petitioner is accused No.2.
2. Respondent/complainant initiated criminal proceedings for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“the Act” for short) against the petitioner and her husband who was arrayed as Accused No.1.
3. In the complaint it is stated as follows:
“7. That on a day in the first week of June, 2023 the Complainant insisted upon the Accused to pay back his money with interest. Then both the Accused told that, they would pay then Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Only) towards loan amount and Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) towards interest by issue of a cheque. They further told that within next 2-3 months they would clear all the dues of the complainant together with interest up to date of repayment. Accordingly, the Accused No.1 gave a postdated cheque dated : 26th July, 2023 bearing No.000147 drawn on RBL Bank for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) in favour of Complainant.”
4. It is therefore clear that the cheque in question was issued by accused No.1. Nevertheless, the complaint has been lodged arraying both the petitioner as well as her husband as the accused.
5. Since, the offence under Section 138 of the Act can only be initiated against the person who has issued the cheque, obviously, the proceedigns against the petitioner who had not issued the cheque would be unsustainable especially when the only allegation alleged against the petitioner and her husband is of commission of an offence as contemplated under Section 138 of the Act. Consequently, the proceedings as against the petitioner shall stand quashed.
