IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY Y CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.429 OF 2008 Mrs.Vijaya S. Vennam .. Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents Ms.A.G.Bhaktwani for the petitioner. Mr.Y.S.Shinde, A.P.P for the State. Mr.R.D.Dave for the respondent No.2. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 18th July 2008. : 18th July 2008. : 18th July 2008. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in a complaint filed by the second respondent under section 138 of the N.I.Act, 1881. The case made out by the second respondent is that two complaints were filed under section 138 of the said Act against husband of the petitioner. It is alleged that the husband of the petitioner is the proprietor of the Firm by the name M/s.Venkateshwar Enterprises. It is alleged in the complaint filed by the second respondent that during the pendnecy of the said two complaints filed against husband of the petitioner, there was a settlement. It is alleged that the petitioner accepted the liability of paying the amount due and payable by her husband and : 2 : issued cheques which are the subject matter of the complaint filed by the second respondent. The said cheques issued by the petitioner were dishonoured and, therefore, the said complaint has been filed by the second respondent. Petitioner’s husband was also arraigned as an accused in the said complaint. However, the learned Magistrate dismissed the said complaint as against petitioner’s husband and issued process against the petitioner. The petitioner filed a revision application before the Sessions Court challenging the order issuing process. The same has been dismissed. 2. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no document placed on record evidencing that the petitioner accepted liability of her husband. She submitted that the second respondent did not produce any writing or agreement signed by the petitioner whereby she agreed to repay the amount payable by her husband. She placed reliance on a decision of learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Hiten Sagar & Anr. Vs. IMC Ltd. & Anr. (2001 (5) Bom. C.R. 890). She submitted that in the absence of any material regarding acceptance of the liability by the petitioner, a case for quashing is made out. : 3 : 3. I have given careful consideration to the said submissions. It seems to be an admitted position that in the earlier complaint filed by the second respondent against the husband of petitioner, there was a settlement and, thereafter the cheques in dispute were issued by the petitioner. Whether the petitioner accepted the liability of her husband or not is a question which can be determined only after the parties adduce evidence. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that an offence under section 138 of the said Act is not made out. 4. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not help her for the simple reason that in the said decision this Court passed an order of quashing the complaint under section 138 of the said Act in the light of the peculiar facts of the case before it. 5. There is no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly rejected. However, all contentions of the petitioner in the pending complaint are expressly kept open. : 4 : (A.S.Oka,J)