SHALU ARORA \ RAMAN KUMAR ARORA Vs. TANU BATHLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the complaint No. NACT/90/2020 dtd. 16/1/2020 under Sec. under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') (Annexure P-1) pending in the Court of JMFC, SAS Nagar, District Court, Mohali, titled as "Tanu Bathla Vs. Raman Kumar Arora and another" and the summoning order dtd. 1/2/2020 (Annexure P-2) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the proceedings under Sec. 138 of the Act were initiated by the respondent against the petitioner and her husband Raman Kumar Arora by alleging that loan of Rs.5,00,000.00 was taken by the petitioner and her husband from the respondent and in order to pay the loan amount of Rs.5,00,000.00, a cheque bearing No. 000085 dtd. 22/11/2019 drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank, New Delhi, Rani Bagh Branch, was handed over to the respondent. The said cheque was dishonoured on presentation by the respondent with his banker with the remark "insufficient funds". Thereafter, a statutory notice was sent by the respondent to the petitioners, however, no payment was made to the respondent. Consequently, the respondent filed a complaint under Sec. 138 of the Act (Annexure P-1) against the petitioner and her husband Raman Kumar Arora. Vide order dtd. 1/2/2020 (Annexure P-2), the trial Court took cognizance of the offence and summons were issued to the petitioner and her husband. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner appeared before the trial Court and notice of accusation (Annexure P-3) was served on her as well as her husband.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the petitioner has been arrayed as accused in the present case only on the ground that the petitioner and her husband are joint account holders in the bank account, from which, the said cheque has been issued, whereas, the petitioner was not the signatory to the cheque in question. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner could not have been summoned in the present case only on the ground that the cheque in question was issued from the joint account of the petitioner and her husband. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Aparna A Shah Vs. M/s Sheth Developers P. Ltd. And another, 2013 (8) SCC 71 and Alka Khandu Avhad Vs. Amar Syamprasad Mishra 2021 (4) SCC 675, to contend that it is the drawer of the cheque, who can be prosecuted.