JUGESH SEHGAL versus SHAMSHER SINGH GOGI

JUGESH SEHGAL versus SHAMSHER SINGH GOGI

Since the cheque was not drawn by the appellant on an account maintained by him, the first essential ingredient of Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act is not satisfied; thus, no offence under Section 138 is made out and continuance of the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of court.

Parties
Appellant: Jugesh Sehgal; Respondent: Shamsher Singh Gogi
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
10 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order Dismissing Petition Under Section 482 Cr Pc, Seeking Quashing of Complaint Under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Negotiable Instruments Act Section 138, Quashing of Criminal Proceedings Under Section 482 Cr PC, Ingredients of Section 138 Offence
Criminal Law Banking Law Negotiable Instruments Act Section 138 Quashing of Criminal Proceedings Under Section 482 Cr PC Ingredients of Section 138 Offence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jugesh Sehgal

Appellant

Shamsher Singh Gogi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order Dismissing Petition Under Section 482 Cr Pc, Seeking Quashing of Complaint Under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act applies when the accused has not drawn the cheque on an account maintained by him
  2. 2 Whether continuance of proceedings under Section 138 amounts to abuse of court process when basic ingredients are not satisfied

Ratio Decidendi

Since the cheque was not drawn by the appellant on an account maintained by him, the first essential ingredient of Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act is not satisfied; thus, no offence under Section 138 is made out and continuance of the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of court.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Impugned order of High Court set aside
  • Criminal Complaint No. 275 of 2008 pending against appellant in Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat is quashed