ORDER:

1 This criminal petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C, is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner / A.2 in C.C.No.194 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the III Special Magistrate, Erramanzil, Hyderabad, for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act.

2 Heard Sri Venugopal Rao, learned counsel representing Sri Jagadish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.P.Suresh Ram, learned counsel for the second respondent and Sri Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State.

3 The facts that lead to the filing of the present criminal petition, in nutshell, are that the second respondent herein filed a private complaint before the III Special Magistrate, Erramanzil, Hyderabad, for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act against the petitioner and her husband. Petitioner is accused No.2 therein. The contents of the complaint are that the petitioner and her husband borrowed an amount of Rs.25.00 lakhs on 31.01.2010 and executed three promissory notes in favour of the second respondent agreeing to repay the said amount with interest @ 24% p.a. In discharge of the said amount, the accused gave three cheques through their joint account in Citi Bank, Saidabad branch, Hyderabad and the said cheques were dishonoured on presentation by the second respondent for clearance. The bank authorities have issued Memos to that effect. Thereupon the second respondent issued legal notice on 09.07.2012 to the accused and as there was no positive response, he filed the complaint after following the due procedure.

4 The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the trial Court ought not to have taken cognizance against the petitioner who is A.2, inasmuch as the petitioner is not a signatory to the promissory notes so also to the cheques. The promissory notes as well as the cheques were signed and issued by the first accused, who is her husband, only. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court in Mrs.Aparna A. Shah v. M/ s. Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd1, in support of his contention.

5 In the light of the above submissions, this Court looked into the promissory notes and also the copies of the cheques. The promissory notes show that all those were signed by the husband of the petitioner only. The petitioner is not signatory to the said promissory notes.

6 As seen from the Xerox copies of the cheques, those were also signed by the husband of the petitioner. Of course, the name of the petitioner was also inscribed beneath the name of the husband of the

1 2013 CRI.L.J.3743

petitioner since the account is a joint account to which the petitioner and her husband are joint account holders.

7 In Mrs.Aparna A. Shah case, relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Hon'ble apex Court held as follows:

22. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that Under Section 138 of the Act, it is only the drawer of the cheque who can be prosecuted. In the case on hand, admittedly, the Appellant is not a drawer of the cheque and she has not signed the same. A copy of the cheque was brought to our notice, though it contains name of the Appellant and her husband, the fact remains that her husband alone put his signature. In addition to the same, a bare reading of the complaint as also the affidavit of examination-in-chief of the complainant and a bare look at the cheque would show that the Appellant has not signed the cheque.

23. We also hold that Under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, in case of issuance of cheque from joint accounts, a joint account holder cannot be prosecuted unless the cheque has been signed by each and every person who is a joint account holder. The said principle is an exception to Section 141 of the N.I. Act which would have no application in the case on hand. The proceedings filed Under Section 138 cannot be used as an arm twisting tactics to recover the amount allegedly due from the Appellant. It cannot be said that the c