Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 42 (CAL)

In Re. Sushil kumar behati v. .

2013-01-28

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2013
JUDGMENT : Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1.The present petition has been filed u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that the impugned complaint case being Case No. C 944 of 2008 pending in the court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Bench, Calcutta be quashed. Briefly stated, opposite party no. 2 Pradip Kumar Chatterjee instituted a complaint against Manoy Kumar Behati and the present petitioner Sushil Kumar Behati, wherein it was stated that a cheque was issued to him for discharge of legal liability and the cheque on presentation had bounced. 2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the cheque was signed by Manoy Kumar Behati, who is the son of the petitioner. The petitioner herein is not the signatory of the cheque. F3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is being involved in the present case only because that he is a father of the signatory of the cheque. 4. Counsel for the respondent/complainant has submitted that the bank account is jointly maintained by the petitioner along with his son and on the cheque, names of both the son of the petitioner and the petitioner are printed. 5. Merely because, the petitioner is having joint account with his son, he cannot be made liable for the offence u/s 138 of the N.I. Act. In the complaint, no averment has been made that the petitioner is having any common interest with the accused, who has issued the cheque. Nowhere it has been stated that the petitioner is a partner of any firm. Nowhere it has been stated in the complaint that the petitioner is responsible for day to day affairs of his son. 6. Consequently, merely because the petitioner is father of the person who has signed the cheque cannot be prosecuted on the ground that he is having a joint account with his son. Hence, the present petition is accepted and the impugned F.I.R. is quashed qua the petitioner. However, proceedings shall continue against the son of the petitioner who is a signatory of the cheque. 7. In view of the observations made above, the present petition is disposed of. Criminal Section is directed to supply urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, to the parties upon compliance of necessary formalities.