ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Suneeta R. Shukla on behalf of the applicants and learned APP Ms. Mehta on behalf of the respondent-State, learned Advocate Mr. Jigar M. Patel on behalf of the respondent-original complainant.

2. Issue Rule in all these matters, learned APP Ms. M. D. Mehta as well as learned Advocate Mr. Patel waive service of rule on behalf of the respective respondents. The present applications are taken up for final disposal with consent of the learned Advocates for the parties. A common question arises for consideration of this Court in all these applications and additionally parties to the dispute in all the applications are also common hence, all the applications are taken up for hearing simultaneously,.

3. The question that arises for consideration of this Court in this group of application, would be that whether the impugned complaint, should be quashed by this Court, only on the ground that the petitioner i.e. an accused in the complaint, is not a signatory to the cheque in question, though the cheque in question was drawn on a joint account maintained by both the accused.

4. For the purpose of deciding the question as above, facts of the Special Criminal Application No. 10605 of 2019 are being taken into consideration. The applicant challenges Criminal Case No. 1253 of 2019 filed by the respondent no. 2 herein against the applicant and his wife. Learned Advocate Ms. Shukla would submit that while the account in question, from which the cheque had been issued, was a joint account where both the accused i.e. the husband and wife are joint account holders but according to learned Advocate Ms. Shukla the cheque had been signed by the wife of the present applicant and hence, the present applicant cannot be made liable for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

4.1. Learned advocate Ms. Shukla in this regard would rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Aparna A. Shah vs Sheth Developers Private Limited and another reported in 2013 (8) SCC page no. 71. Learned Advocate Mr. Shukla would also referred to a recent decision of this Court in case of Alka Khandu Avhad vs Amar Syamprasad Mishra & Anr. reported in AIR 2021 SC 1616. Learned Advocate Ms. Shukla would submit that in both the judgments, the Hon’ble Apex Court, has reiterated the position of law that under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in case of the issuance of cheque from joint accounts, a joint account holder, cannot be prosecuted unless the cheque had been signed by each and every person who is a joint account holder. Learned Advocate Ms. Shukla would submit that having regard to the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the impugned complaints may be quashed by this Court insofar as the applicants are concerned.

5. This petition is vehemently opposed by learned Advocate Mr. Jigar Patel on behalf of the complainant. Learned Advocate Mr. Patel would submit that when the cheque had been issued from a joint account, both the joint account holders could be held liable for the offence in question. Learned Advocate Mr. Patel would submit that even otherwise in the complaint appropriate averments have been made with regard to both the account holders having entered into transactions with the complainant. As such, to a specific query put by this Court, learned Advocate could not dispute the proposition of law as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgments relied upon by learned Advocate Ms. Shukla.

6. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. As noted herein above, the only question which arises for the consideration of this Court is whether a joint account holder could be prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, if the cheque in question has not been signed by the account holder. In the considered opinion of this Court, the question is no more res integra. In case of Aparna A. Shah (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed in parag