Neeru vs Surjit Singh Nanda on 10 August, 2009

Crl. Misc. No. M-12113 of 2009                                           1



        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                       CHANDIGARH

                               Crl. Misc. No. M-12113 of 2009
                               Date of decision : 10.08.2009

Neeru

                                                        ....Petitioner

                                     V/s

Surjit Singh Nanda
                                                        ....Respondent

BEFORE : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

Present: Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Karamjit Singh, Advocate
for the respondent.

RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL)

This is a petition for quashing of the complaint and summoning

order pursuant there to. The plea of the counsel for the petitioner is that

petitioner namely Neeru has a joint account with her husband in HDFC

Bank Ltd., Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. According to the counsel, cheque in

question for an amount of Rs. one lac was issued in the name of the

complainant/respondent by the husband of the petitioner. However, the

petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in the complaint only due to the

fact that the petitioner has a joint account with her husband and the cheque

was issued from the same account. He submits that no offence qua the

petitioner is made out as Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is

not attracted.

The fact that cheque was signed only by the husband of the
Crl. Misc. No. M-12113 of 2009 2

petitioner i.e. Shashi Shekhar is not disputed by learned counsel for the

respondent. He, however submits that cheque was issued from the joint

account maintained by the petitioner and her husband in the HDFC Bank

and, therefore, she is liable to be prosecuted.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful

thought to the facts of the case.

Admittedly, the cheque in question was issued by Shashi

Shekhar and not by Neeru (petitioner herein). Under the circumstances, it

is inexplicable as to how Section 141 would be applicable and vicarious

liability of the petitioner can be fixed in the case. In view of the law laid by

this Court in Bandeep Kaur. Vs. S. Avneet Singh 2008(2) RCR(Crl.) Page

66, it is clear that no liability can be fastened on the petitioner for the

alleged offence. In Bandeep Kaur (supra) this court has held as under:-

“…..7. Though, the cheque was drawn to a joint bank
account, which is to be operated by anyone i.e., the petitioner or by
her husband, but the controversial document is the cheque, the
liability regarding dishonoring of which can be fastened on the
drawer of it. In other words, it could well be explained that the
cheque was issued by Pawandeep Singh, non-petitioner is discharge
of his liability and not by the petitioner. The petitioner neither had
any dealings with the complainant, nor she is the drawer. Mere fact
that the petitioner happens to be the spouse of the first accused, is
hardly sufficient to condemn her as the co-accused with him. On the
persual of the penal provisions as contained under the Act, it
transpires that there is no such provision regarding taking
cognizance against a person other than the “drawer” of the cheque,
subject to the conditions, as mentioned in proviso to Section 138 of
the Act and other provisions mentioned in Chapter XVII of the Act. If
the person committing the offence under Section 138 of the Act is a
Crl. Misc. No. M-12113 of 2009 3

company, then the person incharge of the company as well as the
company itself shall be deemed guilty of the offence as provided
under Section 141 of the Act. It is settled principle of law that penal
provisions should be construed strictly and the emphasis is on the
words, “such person”. It is manifest from the expression of the
words used in Section 138 of the Act “such person shall be deemed to
have committed the offence” related to the person who had drawn the
cheque in favour of the payee and if the said cheque is returned
unpaid on account of the conditions mentioned under Section 138 of
the Act, such person alone is liable but not other except the
contingencies mentioned under Section 141 of the Act. I find support
to this view of mine from the decisions in cases G. Surya
Prabhavathi v. Nekkanti Subrahmanyeswara Rao, 1999(1) RCR
(Crl.) 788 (A.P.), Devi v. Haridas, 2004(4) RCR(Crl.) 641 (kerala)
and R.Priyadharshini (A-2) v. LIC Housing Finance Ltd. 2005(3)
RCR(Crl.) 630 (Madaras).

8. For the reasons recorded above, it would not be unsafe to
observe that the petitioner is not liable for the cheque drawn by her
husband from a joint account releating to both of them. She also
cannot be held liable with the aid of the provisions as envisaged
under Section 141 of the Act. However, accused Pawandeep Singh
Grover could be saddled with culpable liability as he is the only
“drawer” of the cheque…..”

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the

proceedings qua the petitioner in complaint titled as ‘Surjit Singh Nanda Vs.

Shashi Shekhar and another’, (Annexure P-2) stand quashed. However,

proceedings qua the other accused namely Shashi Shekhar shall continue

before the trial court in accordance with law.

10.08.2009                                               (RAJAN GUPTA)
Ajay                                                        JUDGE