2013 AIR SCW 4161 ::2013 CRI. L. J. 3743 ::AIR 2013 SC( Cri) 1724 ::2013 ACD 953 (SC) ::2013 (5) ABR 119 ::2013 (3) AIR Kant HCR 560 ::(2013) 3 BomCR(Cri) 317 ::(2013) 2 MadLW(Cri) 454 ::(2013) 3 CriLR(Raj) 657 ::(2013) 3 DLT 696 ::(2013) 3 CurCriR 287 ::(2014) 1 CivLJ 497 ::(2013) 2 AllCriR 2169 ::2013 CriLR(SC&MP) 657 ::2013 (8) SCC 71 ::(2013) 3 Ker LT 190 ::(2013) 3 RecCriR 686 ::(2013) 3 RecCivR 680 ::(2013) 8 Scale 140 ::2013 CriLR(SC MAH GUJ) 657 ::(2013) 2 ALD(CRL) 1023 ::(2013) 4 AllCriLR 680 ::(2013) 3 BankCas 491 ::(2013) 4 Bom CR 879 ::(2013) 3 ChandCriC 466 ::(2013) 5 Mad LW 38 ::(2013) 2 NIJ 160 ::(2013) 4 Mh LJ (Cri) 1 ::(2014) 1 MPLJ 42 ::(2014) 1 Mah LJ 1 ::(2013) 55 OCR 1104 ::(2013) 3 Ker LJ 331 ::2013 (4) KCCR SN 386 (SC) ::(2013) 2 UC 1249 ::(2013) 83 AllCriC 576 ::(2013) 130 AllIndCas 265 (SC) ::(2014) 1 MPHT 1

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Bombay)

Hon'ble Judge(s): P. Sathasivam, J. S. Khehar , JJ

Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881) , S.138— Dishonour of cheque - Criminal liability - Drawer of cheque alone can be prosecuted - Cheque issued by husband of appellant from their joint account - Appellant is not a drawer of cheque as she has not signed the same - Criminal proceedings against appellant quashed. Cri. W. P. No. 1823 of 2010, D/- 24-9-2010 (Bom), Reversed. Under S. 138 of the Act, it is only the drawer of the cheque who can be prosecuted. In the present case, the appellant is not a drawer of the cheque and she has not signed the same. A copy of the cheque brought to notice of Supreme Court though contains name of the appellant and her husband, the fact remains that her husband alone put his signature. In addition to the same, 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. 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 41 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 th....