ORDER

1. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 15.02.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in criminal complaint case no.1708/2017 whereby the learned trial Court dismissed the application under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner-Renu Singh.

2. The brief facts of the case are that co-accused including the petitioner have received loan amounting to Rs.30,000/- on 08.09.2014 and Rs.49,000/- on 23.09.2014 for the purpose of business and co-accused gave two cheques of Rs.49,000/- dated 10.08.2017 and Rs.30,000/- dated 25.08.2017 of Union Bank of India which was dishonoured, therefore, complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "N.I.Act") was registered against the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though she and her husband co-accused Shailendra Singh are the joint account holder of the bank account in Union of India, but the above cheques were issued by her husband co-accused Shailendra Singh and not by the petitioner. Her signatures are not on that cheques. The petitioner filed an application before the trial Court to discharge her from the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act but her application has been rejected on the ground that as the cheques have been issued from the joint account, the petitioner cannot be discharged from the liability and under the provisions of Cr.P.C.an accused cannot be discharged from the liability and the Court cannot has no power to review the order.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aparna A.Shah Vs. M/s Sheth Developers Pvt.Ltd. reported in AIR 2013 SC 3210 and prays for discharge of the petitioner from the charges under Section 138 of the N.I.Act.

5. After service of notice, Vakalatnama was filed on 05.04.2022 on behalf of the respondent, but nobody has appeared for the respondent today.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order.

7. The copy of cheques allegedly given by the accused-Shailendra Singh are on record and on perusal of copies of the cheques it is clear that there are only signatures of Shailendra Singh and these cheques are not bearing the signatures of the petitioner.

8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aparna A.Shah (Supra) has held as under:-

"Under S. 138 of the Act, it is only the drawer of the cheque who can be prosecuted. In the present case, the appellant is not a drawer of the cheque and she has not signed the same. A copy of the cheque brought to notice of Supreme Court though contains name of the appellant and her husband, the fact remains that her husband alone put his signature. In addition to the same, bare reading of the complaint as also the affidavit of examination-in-chief of the complainant and a bare look at the cheque would show that the appellant has not signed the cheque. 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 41 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 a 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 proceedings under Section 138 of the Act. Thus, criminal proceedings against appellant quashed."

9. Now it is settled law that all joint account holders may be prosecuted under Section 138 only when their signatures