IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA th ON THE 13 OF MARCH, 2024 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 140 of 2020 BETWEEN:-

DIPTI AGNIHOTRI W/O SHRI SANTOSH AGNIHOTRI OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE R/O UMA AUTOMOBILES (AGNIHOTRI AUTOMOBILE) IN FRONT OF GULAB LODGE, N.H. 7 MAIHAR, DIST. SATNA, M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPLICANT (BY SHRI MOHD. AADIL USMANI - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. SMT. RUCHI AGRAWAL W/O SHRI ANANAD AGRAWAL, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PROPRIETOR R.M. EXCAVATION, BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION PRODUCES DEALER LAKHAMPUR, N.H. 7, REWA, ROAD MAIHAR, DIST. SATNA, M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. ANAND AGRAWAL S/O LATE SHRI RAMCHANDRA AGRAWAL, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, JAI STAMBH CHOWK SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (SHRI ATUL CHOUDHARI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)

This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed seeking quashment of the private complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act filed against the petitioner being registered as Complaint Case No.119/2018 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate First Signature Not Verified Class Satna (M.P.).

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred as the 'Act of 1881'). The respondent No.1 is a dealer of the petroleum products of Bharat Petroleum Corporation and runs her business from Lakhampur N.H. - 7, Rewa, District Satna. Respondent No.2 is the husband of respondent No.1 and helps respondent No.1 in her business. Applicant is the wife of Shri Santosh Agnihotri who used to purchase Diesel on credit from the respondents. An amount of Rs.1,95,048/- was due for which a cheque from the joint account of the applicant amounting to Rs.1,20,000/- of Induslnd Bank Ltd. bearing cheque No.518676 dated 30.11.2017 was issued. The cheque was dishonored on presentation to the Union Bank of India, Satna for the reason insufficient funds.

3. On notice being issued the assurance was given by the respondents that if the cheque is again put in the Bank the same will be honored. But, the same was again dishonored for the reason insufficient funds. Thereafter, a complaint has been filed. The application seeking exemption from the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 has been filed on the ground that she is neither the signatory of the cheque in question nor any obligation to pay the cheque amount. She has been made accused in the complaint merely because the cheque was issued from the joint account. The learned trial court has rejected the application on 06.11.2019. Therefore, this petition has been filed.

4. It is argued that the cheque in question has been signed by her husband Santosh Agnihotri. Although the same has been given from the joint account of applicant as well as her husband, but the fact remains that she has no signed the cheque in question. Therefore, she cannot be held liable for making the Signature Not Verified payments. The cheque does not belong to any firm or any company. It is a cheque with joint account holdings. Therefore, the signatory of the cheque is liable to repay the amount. She is unnecessarily dragged into the proceedings of Section 138 of the Act of 1881.

5. He has placed reliance upon the judgment dated 30.11.2023 passed in the case of Shalu Arora v. Tanu Bathla : CRM. No.21798/2022 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh and in the case of Aparna A. Shah v. M/s Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. :1 Criminal Appeal No.813/2023 decided on 01.07.2013. She seeks quashment of the procedure under Section 138 of the Act of 1881.

6. Counsel appearing for the respondents has vehemently opposed the contentions. It is argued that it is a joint account from which the cheque has been issued but although the same has been signed by the husband of the applican