Case Name
Suniti Sunita Patnaik v. Sajjan Kumar Agrawal
Legal Issue
Is a cheque dishonour complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act maintainable against a trustee who signed the cheque without making the trust an accused?
Background
The complainant supplied hardware materials worth ₹22.42 lakh on credit to a trust. To clear the outstanding dues, the trustee issued a cheque on behalf of the trust, which was later dishonoured due to insufficient funds. After the statutory demand notice remained unserved, the complainant filed a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The trustee challenged the proceedings before the High Court, arguing that since the cheque was issued from the trust’s bank account, the complaint was not maintainable without impleading the trust as an accused.
Court’s Decision
The Orissa High Court dismissed the petition and relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sankar Padam Thapa v. Vijaykumar Dineshchandra Agarwal (2025). The Court held that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is maintainable against the trustee who signed the cheque, even if the trust is not made an accused.
The Court further observed that earlier decisions requiring the trust to be impleaded no longer represent the correct legal position, as they have been overruled by the Supreme Court.
Takeaway
The judgment clarifies that in cheque dishonour cases involving a trust, prosecuting the trustee who signed the cheque is sufficient. The trust itself need not be impleaded as an accused for a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to be maintainable.
