AJIT Vs. KIRTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed by the applicant/complainant against the order dated 19. 12. 2003 passed by III A. C. J. M. , Indore in Criminal Case No. 2277/2002 whereby discharged the non-applicant No. 1 Smt. Kirti, wife of Rajiv Agarwal, the non-applicant No. 2 on the ground that the cheque was not signed by her.

(2.) THE contention of the learned Counsel for applicant is that non-applicant No. 1 Smt. Kirti Agarwal has raised the loan from the applicant and she was having joint account in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Branch Sanyogitaganj, Indore. He has also submitted that the cheque was issued under the signature of non-applicant No. 2 Rajiv Agarwal, the husband of the non-applicant No. 1 and both were having joint account. He has also submitted that in the cheque, name of account holder is mentioned as Smt. Kirti Agarwal. The learned Counsel has also submitted that payment is to be made from the concerned account for which the cheque was issued. The learned Trial Court has failed to consider this aspect and discharged the non-applicant No. 1 Smt. Kirti Agarwal in a premature stage on an application filed by the non-applicant Smt. Kirti Agarwal under Section 245 of the Cr. P. C. and as a matter of fact this application was not maintainable because Section 245 can be applied only in a warrant trial whereas the offence involved is a summons trial.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel for non-applicants has submitted that since the cheque was not issued by the non-applicant No. 1 Smt. Kirti, she cannot be held responsible because she was not the drawer of the said cheque and Section 7 is providing definition of drawer. The learned Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Kerala High Court in G. Hari and Ors. v. John Promod Alexander and Anr. , 2000 Cr. I. J. 1658.