Point of Law: Words used in Section 138 of N.I.Act that “such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence” refers to a person who has drawn the cheque, but not any other person, except the contingencies mentioned under Section 141 of the N.I.Act

ORDER :

Since facts of the case and the issue involved in all these Criminal Petitions are similar, all these Criminal Petitions are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Criminal Petition No.5069, 5076, 5081 and 5068 of 2021, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) are filed by the petitioner/A.2 seeking to quash the proceedings against her in C.C.No.134 of 2019 on the file of VII Special Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, at Hastinapur and C.C.Nos.274, 275 and 276 of 2019 on the file of XII Special Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, at Hastinapur, respectively.

3. Heard Sri B.Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner/A.2, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1/State, Sri V.V.L.N. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/ complainant, in all the Criminal Petitions and perused the record.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/A.2 would contend that the petitioner, who is arrayed as A.2 in the subject C.Cs, is not a signatory to the subject cheques and she is falsely implicated in the subject C.Cs. No ingredients constituting the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “N.I.Act”) are made out against the petitioner/A.2 and therefore, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner/A.2 is nothing but abuse of process of law. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon the decisions reported in Alka Khandu Avhad vs. Amar Syamprasad Mishra and others, AIR 2021 SC 1616 and Mrs. Aparna A. Shah v. M/s. Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd. and another, AIR 2013 SC 3210 and ultimately prayed to allow the Criminal Petitions as prayed for.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.2/ complainant conceded that the petitioner/A.2 is not a signatory to the subject cheques but contended that the petitioner/A.2 is aware of the money transactions and handing over of the subject cheques. It is submitted that the petitioner/A.2 is maintaining joint account with her husband i.e, A.1 and the subject cheques relate to the said joint account only. The petitioner/A.2 has knowledge of the subject transactions and most of the amounts were paid to her account only. In view of these circumstances, the Courts below rightly took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act against the petitioner/A.2 along with A.1. It is further submitted that the trial in the subject C.Cs has already commenced and hence, there is no irregularity in proceeding against the petitioner/A.2 for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act and ultimately prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petitions.

6. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supported the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for respondent No.2/ complainant and ultimately prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petitions.

7. In view of the above submissions made by both sides, the point for determination in these Criminal Petitions is:

“Whether the proceedings against the petitioner/A.2 in C.C.No.134 of 2019 on the file of VII Special Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, at Hastinapur and C.C.Nos.274, 275 and 276 of 2019 on the file of XII Special Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, at Hastinapur, are liable to be quashed?”

8. POINT: As seen from the material placed on record, the petitioner is arrayed as A.2 in the subject C.C.No.134 of 2019 on the file of VII Special Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, at Hastinapur and C.C.Nos.274, 275 and 276 of 2019 on the file of XII Special Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, at Hastinapur. The Courts below took cognizance of the said cases for the offence under Sections 138 of N.I.Act against A.1 and his wife i.e, petitioner/A.2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/A.2 is that the proceedings against the petitioner/A.2 in the subject C.C.s are liable to be quashed, inasmuch as she is merely a joint account holder and not a signa