Allowed

Kasthuri v. T.K.Thiruvenkadam

Madras HC18 Aug 2016CRL OP/12066/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a cheque bounce case filed against a husband and wife sharing a joint account, the High Court quashed the proceedings against the wife as she was not a signatory to the cheque. The Court held that only a signatory incurs liability under Section 138 and continued the trial against the husband.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the prosecution against Kasthuri in S.T.C. No.395 of 2015 while proceeding against R. Kuppusamy.

Kasthuri Vs T.K.Thiruvenkadam — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 18.08.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

Crl.OP No.12066 of 2016

¶6

and

¶7

Crl.M.P.No.6192 of 2016

¶8

Kasthuri .. Petitioner Vs 1. T.K. Thiruvenkadam 2. R. Kuppusamy ..Respondents Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for direction to call for the records in S.T.C. No.395 of 2015 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.01, Court, Panruti and quash the same. For Petitioner :Mr.J. Rajmohan For R1 :Mr.K. Moorthy ORDER

¶9

This petition has been filed to call for the complainant in S.T.C. No.395 of 2015 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Panruti and quash the same.

¶10

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent.

¶11

For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their name.

¶12

It is the case of T.K.Thiruvenkadam (complainant) that R.Kuppusamy (A1) and his wife Kasthuri, (A2) had borrowed Rs.40,00,000/- from him on 01.08.2014 and in discharge of said debt, a cheque dated 08.07.2015 for Rs.44,00,000/- was issued in favour of Thiruvenkadam. When Thiruvenkadam presented the cheque, it was dishonoured for "insufficiency of funds". Thiruvenkadam issued statutory notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and since the cheque amount was not paid within the stipulated time, he has launched the prosecution in STC No.395/2015 before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Panruti against the said Kuppusamy and Kasthuri, challenging which Kasthuri is before this Court.

¶13

Learned counsel for Kasthuri submitted that the cheque has been signed by her husband R.Kuppusamy in a joint account https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ held by them and since she is not a signatory to the cheque,

¶14

she cannot be mulcted with criminal liability.

¶15

Per contra, learned counsel for T.K.Thiruvenkadam submitted that the loan was borrowed by R.Kuppusamy and Kasthuri and therefore, Kasthuri cannot be absolved of the liability under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶16

In the considered opinion of this Court, it is trite that in a joint account held by two parties, only the signatory of the cheque can be prosecuted and not the other person. In this case, admittedly, the cheque has been signed by R.Kuppusamy and not by Kasthuri.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing for Kasthuri submitted that the signature in the impugned cheque is that of R.Kuppusamy and not that of Kasthuri.

¶18

In view of the above, the prosecution against Kasthuri in STC 395/2015 is an abuse of process of law.

¶19

In the result, this petition is allowed and the prosecution in STC No.395 of 2015 as against Kasthuri is quashed. The Trial Court order shall proceed as against R.Kuppusamy and complete the trial expeditiously. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/Asst.Registrar (CS ) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar To

¶20

The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Panruti.

¶21

+1 cc to Mr.K.Moorthy,advcoate,sr.47406

¶22

+1 cc to mr.J.Rajamohan,advocate,sr.47158.

¶23

vsn(co) krd 29/8 Crl.OP No.12066 of 2016

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Kasthuri v. T.K.Thiruvenkadam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kasthuri v. T.K.Thiruvenkadam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P Velladurai Vs Mr G Krishnakumar

K.Boopathi, Aged About 38 Yrs Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by

N. Arumugam Vs Sabitha

D.Jeba Anandhi Vs C.Jebaselvi Natchathiram

Tmt. S. Manimegalai, Vs the State by the Inspector of

Othisamy Nanjappa Gounder Vs E.Velu