ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.2411/2022 and 14253/2022 registered for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. ('Act' for short).

2. Heard Sri. Shaik Ismail Zabiulla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Venkatesha T.S. learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. The petitioner is the accused No.2. The respondent is the complainant. The two have a transaction, it is alleged that the complainant had paid a sum of Rupees Two crores to the accused No.2 and for repayment of the same, accused No.2 had issued certain cheque. On the cheques being presented for its encashment were dishonored, as the payment had been stopped withdrawing. The proceedings were instituted by the respondent under the Act by registering a private complaint invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. The Court has taken cognizance, which leads the petitioner to this Court to the subject petition, as she is arrayed as accused No.2 in the proceedings.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the cheque is not issued by the petitioner, but it is her husband and she has nothing to do with the business or taking of the funds from the respondent and would submit that a non signatory to the cheque cannot be called into the web of crime under the Act.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent would though seek to refute the submissions made by the learned counsel would admit the fact that the petitioner is not a signatory to the cheque.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material available on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue lies in a narrow compass, as to whether a non signatory to the cheque can be hauled into the proceedings under the Act. The said issue need not detain this Court for long and delve deep into the matter, as the Apex Court considering the very issue as in the cases of APARNA A. SHAH Vs. SHETH DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER 1 and in the case of ALKA KHANDU AVHAD Vs. AMAR SYAMPRASAD MISHRA AND ANOTHER2.

In the case of APARNA A. SHAH (supra) has held as follows:

"12. In order to understand the rival contentions, it is useful to refer Section 138 of the NI Act which reads as under:

“138.Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc.

of funds in the account.—Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an

1 (2013) 8 SCC 71

2 (2021) 4 SCC 675 arrangement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:

Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless—

(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;

(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.

Explanation.—For the purposes