HIGH COURTOF CHHATnSGARH. BILASPUR Criminal Misc.Petition No.940of2Q10 PETJTIONER: RESPONDENT: Smt. Saraswati Vaishnav, aged about 37 years, W/o Keshav Das Vaishnav, R/o Durga Chowk, Baspai Para Rajnandgson, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Versus Smt. Laxmibai Malik, W/o Sharad Chand Malik, Vill. Doundi, Tah. Balod, Distt. Durg (C.G.) {Petition under Section482 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973} Present: Mr. Rakesh Thakur, counselfor the petitioner. Mr. Punit Ruparel, counsel forthe respondent. Single Bench: Hon'blelVIr. T.P. Sharma.J ORALORDEK (15-2-2011) 1. By this petition under Section 482 of the CrPC, the petitioner has challenged legality & propriety of the order dated 15-11-2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC); Balod in Criminal Revision No.37/2009 affirming the Qrdsr dated 22-9-2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dallirajhara in Criminal Case No.156/2009, whereby learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has denied the claim of discharge ofthe petitioner on theground that she has not executed the cheque in question and, therefpre, she is not liable for commission 6f offence punishable under Section 138 ofthe Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (forshort'theAct'). 2. 1 have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned, copy of the complaint and copy of statement of the complainant/respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the account was joint account in the name ofthe petitioner and her husband, but husband of the petitioner has issued the cheque in question, in favour of fhe respondent which was dishonoured and, therefore, only husband ofthe •"•yriiW:. "~:%> ^: ;^^ '<k .•"-V:.. ,} '€• petitioner would be liable for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 ofthe Actand only on the ground that the cheque has been issued from joint account, the petitioner is not liable for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. Learnedcounsel placed reliance in the matter of Devi v. Haridas, 2005 (1) DCR 151, in which the Kerala High Court has held that in case ofjoint account, husband & wife are competent to operate the account separately and only on the ground that thecheque has been issued fromjoint account, otherjointholderwhohas not issued cheque is not liable for commission ofoffence under Section 138 oftheAct. Learned counsel further placed reliance in the matter of Gita Berry v. Genesis Educational Foundation, 2008 (4) Crimes134 (Del.), in which the Delhi High Court has quashed the criminal proceeding in absenceof specific averment againstwife in case ofcheque issued by husband from jointaccount. 4. On the other hand,learned counsel for the respondent opposes the petition and submits that this is not the case in which husband of the petitioner has issued cheque in discharge of debt or liability incurred to him but has executed andissued cheque for discharge of debt and liability incurred against the petitioner and her husband. The respondent has made clear and specific allegation against the petitioner and her husband, in her complaint1 and also in herevidence. On the ground of' aforesaid allegation and evidence, both the Courts below have rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner. 5. This is petition underSection.482 ofthe CrPC. Scope of interference in terms of Section 482 oftheCrPC is limited. Power under Section 482 of theCrPCis exceptional in nature and should be used sparingly. 6. In the pFesentcase, as perallegation madein the complaint, cheque has been issued by husband ofthe petitioner for discharge ofdebtor liability incurred against the petitioner & her husband and not only againsther husband. This is not the case in which husband has issued cheque relating to dischargeofdebt or liability incurred against him. 7. As held bythe Kerala High Court in the matter of Devi (supra), definitely jn case, of joint account husband &wife are competent to operate the account separately, butin the present case, husband has issued cheque not for discharge of liability or debt incurred against him, but for discharge of debt or liability incurred against him and his wife i.e. the f-..\ %S—?<»*f s' ,:-^-:.-••';:<• g Soma petitioner herein. The caseof Devi (supra) is distinguishable on facts to thatof the present case. In Gita Berry's case (supra), the Delhi High Courthas quashed criminal proceeding in absence of specific averment against wife. Inthe present case, the respondent has made specific allegationagainst the petitioner. The case ofGita Berry (supra) is also distinguishable on facts to that ofthe present case. 1 . ' •:. ' . ' ' • . 8. The complaint itself is sufficient for taking cognizance and initiating proceeding against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Seetion 138 of the CrPC. l do not find any ground for interference in exercise of extraordinary inherent jurisdiction in terms ofSection 482 of theCrPC. 9. Consequently, the petition is liable to be dismissedand it is hereby dismissed. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge