IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Dishonour of cheque – A person might have been jointly liable to pay debt, but if such a person who might have been liable to pay debt jointly, cannot be prosecuted unless bank account is jointly maintained and that he was a signatory to cheque.
(2) Two private individuals cannot be said to be “other association of individuals”.

JUDGMENT

M. R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 21.08.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No. 2595 of 2019, by which the High Court has dismissed the said application preferred by the appellant herein under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has refused to quash the complaint filed against the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 138 r/w Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NI Act’), the original accused No. 2 has preferred the present appeal.

2. That respondent No. 1 herein has filed a criminal complaint against the appellant and her husband for the offences punishable under Section 138 r/w Section 141 of the NI Act in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 43rd Court at Borivali, Mumbai, which has been numbered as C.C. No. 2802/SS/2016. That respondent No. 1 – original complaint (hereinafter referred to as ‘the original complainant’) is a practicing advocate and partner in a solicitor firm in Mumbai. As per the case of the complainant, both the accused who are husband and wife, approached the original complaint in a legal matter. That the original complainant assisted accused Nos. 1 and 2 in preparing replies and notice of motion, conference, coordinating with counsel, filing Vakalatnamas and appearing through advocates’ office and also as counsel in Summary Suit. That the original complainant raised a professional bill for the legal work done by him to represent accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the legal proceedings. That, thereafter, original accused No. 1 – husband of the appellant herein handed over to the complainant a postdated cheque dated 15.03.2016 bearing No.227050 drawn on Union Bank of India for Rs.8,62,000/-. The said cheque was presented for encashment and the same came to be returned unpaid with the endorsement “funds insufficient”. That, thereafter, the original complainant served a legal notice dated 21.05.2016 calling upon the accused to pay the amount of Rs.8,62,000/- within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. That the said notice was duly served upon the accused, however, the accused neither replied the said notice nor made the payment of the aforesaid dishonoured cheque. Therefore, the complainant filed a complaint against both the accused – husband and wife for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. That the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 43rd Court, Borivali, Mumbai directed to issue process against both the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 138 r/w Section 141 of the NI Act.

2.1 That, thereafter, the appellant herein – original accused No. 2, wife of the original accused No. 1 filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 2595 of 2019 in the High Court to quash the criminal complaint filed against her mainly on the ground that the appellant was neither a signatory to the cheque dishonoured nor there was a joint bank account.

2.2 It was further submitted that the appellant cannot be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 138 r/w Section 141 of the NI Act.

2.3 However, it was the case on behalf of the original complainant that it was the joint liability of both the accused Nos. 1 and 2 to pay the professional bill as the original complainant represented both the accused and therefore considering Section 141 of the NI Act, the appellant herein – original accused No. 2 is also liable for the offence punishable under Section 138 r/w Section 141 of the NI Act.

2.4 By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has refused to quash the criminal complaint filed against the appellant, giving rise to the present appeal.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that the dishonoured cheque was issued by her husband and not the appellant and even the account in question was not a joint account and that the appellant was neither the signatory to the chequ