JUDGMENT

Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral)

Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C is to quash criminal complaint bearing NACT No.296 of 2017 titled Pawan Kumar Walia v. Virender Singh and another" under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panchkula besides summoning order dated 24.03.2017 and the subsequent orders including the order dated 07.03.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula dismissing the revision.

2. Complaint in question was filed by respondent- Pawan Kumar Walia regarding dishonour of a cheque amounting to Rs.15 lacs against the petitioner and co-accused Virender Singh. It was alleged that petitioner and co-accused had taken friendly loan of Rs.15 lacs and in order to discharge the liability, cheque from the joint account of the two, was issued. After taking preliminary evidence, summoning order was passed against both the accused, i.e. petitioner and the co-accused Virender.

3. Contention of the petitioner is that cheque in question does not bear his signatures and simply because he is the joint account holder, will not make him liable. Learned counsel has relied upon Aparna A. Shah v. Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd. , (2013) 8 SCC 71 .

4. An application for recalling the summoning order was filed on this ground but learned trial Court rejected the same vide order dated 22.05.2018 (Annexure P.6) and the revision against that order was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula vide order dated 07.03.2019 (Annexure P.8).

5. On the other hand, contention of counsel for the respondent is that prior to filing of the complaint, a statutory legal notice was sent to both the accused but petitioner did not file any reply and so he cannot now wriggle out from the liability.

6. Having considered the submissions of both the sides, I find that there is merit in the petition.

7. It is conceded position that cheque in question does not bear the signatures of petitioner, although it was issued from the joint account of petitioner and co-accused. In Aparna A. Shah's case (supra), a similar issued was considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court and it was held as under:-

"In the case on hand, we are concerned with criminal liability on account of dishonour of a cheque. It primarily falls on the drawer, if it is a Company, then Drawer Company and is extended to the officers of the company. The normal rule in the cases involving criminal liability is against vicarious liability. To put it clear, no one is to be held criminally liable for an act of another. This normal rule is, however, subject to exception on account of specific provision being made in statutes extending liability to others. For example, section 141 of the N.I. Act is an instance of specific provision that in case an offence under Section 138 is committed by a company, the criminal liability for dishonour of a cheque will extend to the officers of the company. As a matter of fact, Section 141 contains conditions which have to be satisfied before the liability can be extended. Inasmuch as the provision creates a criminal liability, the conditions have to be strictly complied with. In other words, the persons who had nothing to do with the matter, need not be roped in. A company being a juristic person, all its deeds and functions are the result of acts of others. Therefore, the officers of the company, who are responsible for the acts done in the name of the company, are sought to be made personally liable for the acts which result in criminal action being taken against the company. In other words, it makes every person who, at the time the offence was committ