Cheque dishonour

Parveen Kr. Aggarwal (Querist) 30 January 2010 This query is : Resolved
In a complaint case under sectino 138 N. I. Act a cheque was issued on a bank account maintained by a registered society bearing rubber stamp and signatures of "A" (authorised signatory of the society). However, "B" also signed the cheque ("B" being near relative and manager of the society) despite the fact that "B" was neither authorised to operate the bank account nor having any connection with the bank account.
The cheque was issued in discharge towards repayment of a loan obtained by the society from a private financer (banker). The loan agreement bore signatures of "C" (authorised representative of the society) as well as "B".

Notice before filing of complaint was served only on "B" and on none else and in the complaint also "B" is the sole accused impleaded.

Now my query is what is the liability of "B" in the complaint?

Follow Query

Report Abuse

K D Pande (Expert) 30 January 2010
Compliant against "B" is not maintainable as alleged cheque is not issued from the account maintained by him (B).

Remedy u/s. 319 of Cr.P.C. is available to apply issue summons against A & C

Adinath@Avinash Patil (Expert) 30 January 2010
COMPLAINT AGAINST "B" IS NOT MAINTAINABLE.

Arvind Singh Chauhan (Expert) 30 January 2010
I agree with all above opinions.

Guest (Expert) 30 January 2010
For more information and help visit www.airyourlegalqueries.com

Sachin Bhatia (Expert) 30 January 2010
Compliant against "B" is not maintainable.

Srinath Kondapally (Expert) 30 January 2010
against B is not maintainable.

Sukhija (Expert) 30 January 2010
Compliant against "B" is not maintainable as alleged cheque is not issued from the account maintained by him (B).

Remedy u/s. 319 of Cr.P.C. is available to apply issue summons against A & C

B K Raghavendra Rao (Expert) 30 January 2010
B is the manager of the society but not authorised to sign cheques. In the instant case, he has signed the cheque. It needs to be seen on what grounds the cheque was returned unpaid by the bank. Whether for insufficiency of funds or for wrong signatory. If the cheque had bounced because of insufficiency of funds, B is liable to face charges as accused in cheque bounce case. Otherwise, also B is liable to be charged under forgery not under 138 NI Act.

Parveen Kr. Aggarwal (Querist) 31 January 2010
Cheque was dishonoured on the ground of "insufficient funds".

How "B" can be made liable for forgery when the cheque also bears sigatures of authorised signatory of the society/

Previous

Next

You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .

Click here to login now