2013 (1) TMI 1055 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved: Petition under Section 482 of CrPC seeking quashing of a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Allegations against the Petitioner
The complaint arose from a dishonored cheque drawn by the petitioner's husband, where the petitioner was a joint account holder but did not issue the cheque. The petitioner argued that she cannot be held liable under Section 138 of the Act as she did not draw or issue the cheque.

Issue 2: Arguments of the Petitioner
The petitioner's counsel contended that the petitioner's role in the complaint was not explicitly disclosed, emphasizing that being a joint account holder does not automatically make her vicariously liable for the dishonored cheque under Section 138 of the Act.

Issue 3: Respondent's Position
The respondent argued that since the petitioner and her husband jointly purchased the flat and the cheque was issued from their joint account, the petitioner cannot disassociate herself from the issuance of the dishonored cheque.

Issue 4: Legal Analysis
The court examined Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, emphasizing that the liability of the drawer of a cheque does not extend to joint account holders unless specifically implicated. The court highlighted that penal provisions should be strictly construed.

Issue 5: Judgment
The court found merit in the petitioner's submissions, ruling that the complaint against the petitioner lacked sufficient grounds as she was merely a joint account holder and not directly involved in the issuance of the dishonored cheque. The petition was allowed, quashing the complaint against the petitioner while allowing the trial to proceed against the husband.

Conclusion
The petition under Section 482 of CrPC was allowed, quashing the complaint against the petitioner while maintaining the trial against the husband.