(1.) By virtue of this petition preferred under Sec. 482 Crimial P.C., Prabha Goyal has sought quashing of Criminal Complaint No. 34064 of 2013 dated Sept. 27, 2013 (Annexure P-1) filed under Sec. 138 read with Sec. 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'Act') as well as order dated Sept. 28, 2013 (Annexure P-2) whereby she has been summoned to face trial under Sections 138 and 142 of the Act and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the instant lis are that late husband of the petitioner approached the respondent-complainant in the month of Sept. 2012 for financial assistance to the tune of Rs. 25,00,000.00. The respondent-complainant is alleged to have advanced a friendly loan of Rs. 25,00,000.00 to the husband of petitioner on Sept. 21, 2012 and executed a promissory note and receipt; besides an undertaking/affidavit of the same date. It has further been alleged that petitioner and her husband also handed over a post dated cheque bearing No. 415007 dated April 20, 2013 for an amount of Rs. 25,00,000.00 drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Sector 26, Grain Market, Chandigarh to the respondent-complainant. It has further been alleged that when respondent-complainant approached the petitioner and her husband in the month of April 2013 for re-payment of loan amount, they requested him to present the above said cheque which on presentation was dishonoured with remarks "funds insufficient " vide memo dated July 18, 2013. Thereafter, notice under Sec. 138 of the Act was served upon the husband of the petitioner but it was not responded and ultimately a complaint was filed.
(3.) The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner has been dragged in the complaint filed under Sec. 138 of the Act by respondent being the wife of signatory of the cheque from the joint account. It is pretty settled that in case the drawer of the cheque fails to make the payment on receipt of notice then the provision of Sec. 138 of the Act could be attracted against him only. Even though the cheque was drawn to a joint bank account being operated by the petitioner and her husband but since the controversial document is the cheque, the liability regarding its dishonour can be fastened only on the drawer of it. To buttress this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the pronouncements of this Court in the case of Smt. Bandeep Kaur Vs. S. Avneet Singh; 2008 (2) RCR (Criminal) 66 and Jugesh Sehgal Vs. Shamsher Singh Gogi; 2009 (3) RCR (Criminal) 712 as well as of the Apex Court captioned as Mrs. Aparna A. Shah Vs. M/s Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd. and another; 2013 (3) RCR (Criminal) 686 .