JUGESH SEHGAL versus SHAMSHER SINGH GOGI

Citation: [2009] 10 S.C.R. 857 · Decided: 10-07-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.K. JAIN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

(2009] 10 S.C.R. 857 
JUGESH SEHGAL 
v. 
SHAMSHER SINGH GOGI 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1180 of 2009) 
JULY 10, 2009 
[D.K. JAIN AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: 
A 
B 
s. 138 - Ingredients of - Explained - HELD : In the c 
instant case, the cheque in question was not drawn by 
accused on an account maintained by him -
The very first 
ingredient of s. 138 having not been satisfied, case u/s 138 
not made out against the accused - It was a fit case for 
exercise of jurisdiction u/s 482 CrPC by High Court to quash 0 
the criminal compliant - In the circumstances, continuance 
of proceedings in complaint uls 138 of the Act against the 
accused would be an abuse of process of court - Criminal 
complaint against accused quashed - Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973 - s.482. 
E 
The complainant filed a complaint uls 138 of the 
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the appellant, 
his father, brother and mother. The Chief Judicial 
Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint and issued 
notice to all the accused, who filed petition uls.482 of the 
F 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking to quash the 
complaint. The High Court dismissed the petition qua the 
appellant-accused no.1 on the ground that plea of the 
appellant that the cheque was not issued by him involved 
a disputed question of fact which could not be gone into G 
by the High Court in the proceedings uls.482 of the Code. 
As regards the remaining three accused, the High Court 
allowed the petition holding that neither the cheque was 
issued by them nor were they shown to be vicariously 
857 
H 
858 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
liable u/s.141 of the Act. 
In the appeal field by accused no.1, it was contended 
for the appellant that the cheque in question purportedly 
issued by him was from an account not maintained by 
8 
him but by one 'S' and, therefore, the basic ingredients 
of s.138 of the Act were not fulfilled. It was submitted that 
the said bank account had already been closed and there 
was no question of the cheque in question being issued 
in favour of the complainant by the appellant; and that 
the complaint was an abuse of the process of court and 
C as such liable to be quashed. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. It is manifest that to constitute an offence 
D u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 the 
ingredients required to be fulfilled are: (i) a person must 
have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by him 
in a bank for payment of a certain amount of money to 
another person from out of that account; (ii) The cheque 
E should have been issued for the discharge, in whole or 
in part, of any debt or other liability; (iii) that cheque has 
been presented to the bank within a period of six months 
from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of 
its validity whichever is earlier; (iv) that cheque is 
returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the 
F amount of money standing to the credit of the account 
is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the 
amount arranged to be paid from that account by an 
agreement made with the bank; (v) the payee or the 
holder in due course of the cheque makes a demand for 
G the payment of the said amount of money by giving a 
notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within 15 
days of the receipt of information by him from the bank 
regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and (vi) the 
drawer of such cheque fails to make payment of the said 
H 
JUGESH SEHGAL v. SHAMSHER SINGH GOG! 
859 
amount of money to the payee or the holder in due A 
course of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the 
said notice. [Para 9] [865-C-H; 866-A] 
1.2. In the instant case, it is clear from the facts that 
on receipt of the return memo from the bank, the 8 
complainant is stated to have realized that the 
dishonoured cheque was issued from an account which 
was not maintained by the appellant-accused No.1 but by 
one 'S'. Thereafter, he filed an FIR against all the accused 
for offences u/ss 420, 467, 468, 471, IPC. Thus, there is 
hardly any dispute that the cheque, subject matter of the C 
complaint u/s 138 of the Act, was not drawn by the 
appellant on an account maintained by him. Thus, the 
very first ingredient of s.138 of the Act is not satisfied and, 
consequently, the case against the appellant for having 
committed an offence u/s 138 of the Act cannot be D 
proved. [Para 11] [866-D-G] 
2.1. Though the powers poss

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.