Judgment:
Oral Judgment:
Rule was issued in Criminal Writ Petition No.127/2011 on 14th Oct., 2011.
2. With the consent of learned Counsel for respective parties, Rule, in other matters. Counsel for respective parties waive service.
3. Heard forthwith.
4. These six writ petitions question issuance of process under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in six different complaint petitions against the petitioner, initiated by respective respondents (members of the same family). Process was directed on 6.5.2010, 16.7.2009, 29.4.2011, 16.7.2009, 6.5.2011 and 14.7.2009 in respective matters.
5. No revision is preferred under Section 397 of Cr.P.C., though alternate remedy was available to the petitioner. In normal circumstances, on this count, the petitions would have been remitted for approaching appropriate Court, however, since the grounds in the petition indicate to consider whether there exists a primary liability of the petitioner in terms of Section 138 or 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act, consequently, the petitions are heard finally.
6. The husband of the petitioner and the petitioner had a joint account. Cheques were drawn by husband of the petitioner in discharge of legally enforceable liability. The complaint petition, in paragraph Nos.1 and 2, though refers of complainant having allured or induced or by both the accused to invest, however, it does not indicate that it was a joint venture of the petitioner and her husband. Even if the petitioner had joint account with her husband, she could not be branded with liability in terms of Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act, taking recourse to the explanation (a) operates in different direction. For the purposes of reference, Company to include "a firm or other association of individuals", there is nothing in the complaint petition to illustrate that there was either 'a firm or other association of individuals' between the husband and the petitioner as wife. The payments made by complainant were by cheques, to petitioner's husband, and not to her.
7. Service of statutory notice and its non-reply will not difuse assertions of the petitioner. There could not be fastening of a liability against the petitioner since she was not drawer of the cheque/s. Consequently, process issued against the petitioner in all the matters, is quashed and set aside. Writ Petitions allowed accordingly. Rule made absolute accordingly.