Applicant sought quashing of a cheque bounce case. Court quashed proceedings holding that a joint account holder not signing the cheque cannot be prosecuted. Rule made absolute.
Criminal Case No. 1130 of 2012 against applicant is hereby quashed. Rule made absolute.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
R/CR.MA/5825/2014 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 5825 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI
==========================================================
| 1 | Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? |
NO |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | To be referred to the Reporter or not ? | NO |
| 3 | Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? |
NO |
| 4 | Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ? |
NO |
==========================================================
PRITI M. PATEL
Versus
HITESH JAYANTILAL SHAH & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RUSHABH R SHAH(5314) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR NIRAV C THAKKAR(2206) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR RAKESH PATEL, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI
Date : 01/03/2019
ORAL JUDGMENT
advocate Mr. Nirav C. Thakkar for the respondent no.1 and Mr. Rakesh
Page 1 of 3
R/CR.MA/5825/2014 JUDGMENT
Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no.2.
Page 2 of 3
R/CR.MA/5825/2014 JUDGMENT
reported in AIR 2013 SC 3210 for the proposition that even if the cheque is drawn from an account jointly held by any person, but one who is not signatory to the cheque cannot be prosecuted for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
(UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J)
Bhoomi
Page 3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a joint account holder can be prosecuted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act if they are not a signatory to the cheque.
Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to quash proceedings despite procedural defaults regarding the application to drop proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Aparna A. Shah vs. Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd. and othersApplied¶26
AIR 2013 SC 3210 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Priti M. Patel
Hitesh Jayantilal Shah
Umesh A. Trvedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
