Liability of wife in cheque dishonour case when cheque is issued by husband for liability of wife

 whether   there   exists   a
primary  liability   of   the   petitioner  in   terms   of
Section 138 or 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act,
consequently, the petitions are heard finally.
6. The   husband   of   the   petitioner   and   the
petitioner   had   a   joint   account.   Cheques   were
drawn   by   husband   of  the  petitioner   in   discharge
of legally enforceable liability.   The complaint
(group)
petition,   in   paragraph   nos.   1   and   2,   though
refers   of   complainant   having   allured   or   induced
or   by   both   the   accused   to   invest,   however,   it
does not indicate that it was a joint venture of
the   petitioner   and   her   husband.     Even   if   the
petitioner   had   joint   account   with   her   husband,
she could not be branded with liability in terms
of   Section   141   of   Negotiable   Instruments   Act,
taking recourse to   the explanation (a) operates
in   different   direction.   For   the   purposes   of
reference,   Company   to   include   "a   firm   or   other
association of individuals", there is nothing in
the complaint   petition to illustrate that there
was   either   'a   firm   or   other   association   of
individuals'   between   the   husband   and   the
petitioner   as   wife.   The   payments   made   by
complainant   were   by   cheques,   to   petitioner's
husband, and not to her.     
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1117 OF 2011
Mrs. Vaishali w/o Sunil Raichur,

VERSUS
1. Mr. Arun Shridhar Karadkhedkar,
Citation;2013 ALL M R (Cri) 2562

With the consent of learned Counsel for
respective   parties,   Rule,   in   other   matters.
Counsel for respective parties  waive service. 
3. Heard forthwith. 
4. These   six   writ   petitions   question
issuance   of   process   under   Section   138   of
Negotiable   Instruments   Act   in   six   different
complaint   petitions   against   the   petitioner,
initiated by respective respondents ( members of
the   same   family).       Process   was   directed   on
6.5.2010,   16.7.2009,   29.4.2011,   16.7.2009,
6.5.2011 and 14.7.2009 in respective matters. 
5. No   revision   is   preferred   under   Section
397   of   Cr.P.C.,   though   alternate   remedy   was
available   to   the   petitioner.   In   normal
circumstances, on this count, the petitions would
have   been   remitted   for   approaching   appropriate
Court, however, since the grounds in the petition
indicate   to   consider   whether   there   exists   a
primary  liability   of   the   petitioner  in   terms   of
Section 138 or 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act,
consequently, the petitions are heard finally.
6. The   husband   of   the   petitioner   and   the
petitioner   had   a   joint   account.   Cheques   were
drawn   by   husband   of  the  petitioner   in   discharge
of legally enforceable liability.   The complaint
(group)
petition,   in   paragraph   nos.   1   and   2,   though
refers   of   complainant   having   allured   or   induced
or   by   both   the   accused   to   invest,   however,   it
does not indicate that it was a joint venture of
the   petitioner   and   her   husband.     Even   if   the
petitioner   had   joint   account   with   her   husband,
she could not be branded with liability in terms
of   Section   141   of   Negotiable   Instruments   Act,
taking recourse to   the explanation (a) operates
in   different   direction.   For   the   purposes   of
reference,   Company   to   include   "a   firm   or   other
association of individuals", there is nothing in
the complaint   petition to illustrate that there
was   either   'a   firm   or   other   association   of
individuals'   between   the   husband   and   the
petitioner   as   wife.   The   payments   made   by
complainant   were   by   cheques,   to   petitioner's
husband, and not to her.       
7. Service of statutory notice and its non­
reply   will   not   difuse   assertions   of   the
petitioner.     There   could   not   be   fastening   of   a
liability   against   the   petitioner   since   she   was
not drawer of the cheque/s. Consequently, process
issued against the petitioner in all the matters,
is quashed and set aside.  Writ Petitions allowed
accordingly.  Rule made absolute accordingly.
(K.U.CHANDIWAL)
JUDGE

Print Page