Mohammad Rafiq, J.

This petition has been filed by Smt. Puja Bali challenging order of cognizance dated 24.03.2015 passed by Civil Judge & Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alwar (for short 'the trial court') and order dated 01.09.2015 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, No. 3, Alwar (for short 'the revisional court'). By the first order, the trial court has taken cognizance against the petitioner and her husband Ajay Kumar Bali under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act') and by second order, the revisional court has dismissed the revision petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has been added as accused in the aforesaid proceedings only because she was joint account holder with her husband whereas the cheque, which was dishonoured, was signed by her husband. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mrs. Aparna A. Shah v. M/s. Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. 2013 (2) DCR 417 wherein it has been held that under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, in case of issuance of cheque from joint account, a joint account holder cannot be prosecuted unless the cheque has been signed by each and every person who is a joint account holder. Learned counsel argued that even though the petitioner has a joint bank account with her husband, but indisputably the cheque was signed by her husband and not by the petitioner. Similar view has also been taken by Kerala High Court in Devi v. Haridas, 2005 (1) DCR 151.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 opposed the petition and submitted that this objection can be raised even before the trial court, which court would deal with the same while deciding the matter finally.

4. Having regard to the fact that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mrs. Aparna A. Shah (supra), this Court does not deem it appropriate to allow the proceedings to continue against the petitioner only because she happens to be wife of the main accused as well as joint account holder with him. In a joint family, husband and wife can operate joint bank account and only for that reason, she cannot be prosecuted, particularly when she was not signatory of the cheque which has bounced.

5. The Supreme Court in Aparna (supra) in para 23 observed as under:

"23. We also hold that under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, in case of issuance of cheque from joint accounts, a joint account holder cannot be prosecuted unless the cheque has been signed by each and every person who is a joint account holder. The said principle is an exception to Section 141 of the N.I. Act which would have no application in the case on hand. The proceedings filed under Section 138 cannot be used as an arm twisting tactics to recover the amount allegedly due from the appellant. It cannot be said that the complainant has no remedy against the appellant but certainly not under Section 138. The culpability attached to dishonour of a cheque can, in no case "except in case of Section 141 of the N.I. Act" be extended to those on whose behalf the cheque is issued. This Court reiterates that it is only the drawer of the cheque who can be made an accused in any proceeding under Section 138 of the Act. Even the High Court has specifically recorded the stand of the appellant that she was not the signatory of the cheque but rejected the contention that the amount was not due and payable by her solely on the ground that the trial is in progress. It is to be noted that only after issuance of process, a person can approach the High Court seeking quashing of the same on various grounds available to him. Accordingly, the High Court was clearly wrong in holding that the prayer of the appellant cannot even be considered. Further, the High Court itself has directed the Magistrate to carry out the process of admission/denial of documents. In such circumstances, i