C OMMON O RDER

These petitions have been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.Nos.5348, 5088, 5349, 5100 & 5089 of 2016 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-V at Saidapet, thereby taken cognizance for the offences under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter called as NI Act), as against the petitioner/A2.

2. There are totally five complaints. The petitioner is the second accused in all the quash petitions. The respondents are the complainants and the respondents lodged complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act alleging that towards discharge of part liability due and payable by the accused, first accused issued cheque drawn on State Bank of India, Tiruvanmiyur Branch, Chennai. Both the accused are authorised signatory of the account maintained with their banker. The first accused has drawn the cheques with consent and knowledge of other signatory i.e. the second accused. All the cheques were presented for collection and all the cheques were returned unpaid for the reason that “no sufficient funds”. The accused persons failed to pay the amount. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there are totally two accused, in which the petitioner is arrayed as A2. She is none other than the wife of the first accused. Though both are authorised signatory of the account, admittedly the first accused alone signed the cheque and issued in favour of the respondents herein. The petitioner was not the drawer of the cheque and she has been roped into the complaint merely she happened to be a joint account holder in respect of the bank account from which, cheque was issued by the accused persons. He also cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Aparna A. Shah Vs. Sheth Developers Private Limited and Another reported in (2013) 8 SCC 71.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that both the accused availed loan. Towards discharge of part liability, the first accused issued cheques only after consent and knowledge of the second accused who is also one of the authorised signatory. Therefore, she is also held liable to be punished for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. He further submitted that all the grounds raised by the petitioner can be considered only before the trial court and it cannot be considered before this Court in the quash petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. That apart, all the grounds raised by the petitioner are mixed question of facts and it can be considered only before the trial court during the trial.

5. Heard, Mr.S.Karthikeyan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.Palaniappan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

6. In all the petitions, the petitioner is arrayed as A2 in the complaint lodged by the respondents for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. On perusal of the complaints, it is alleged that the cheques were signed and issued by the first accused. Admittedly, both the accused in all the complaints are authorised signatories of the account maintained by them. Though the respondents averred in the complaints that the first accused signed cheque and issued the same with the consent and knowledge of the second accused i.e. the petitioner herein, she was not the drawer of the cheque. She has been roped into the complaint merely she happened to be a joint account holder in respect of the account from which the cheques were issued in favour of the respondents herein. It is relevant to extract the provisions under Section 138 of NI Act hereunder:

“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