Liability of wife for dishonour of cheque when there is no legal liability

   He   accepted   that 
he   had   no   transaction   with   Varsha.     Even,   the 
cheque   which   has   been   proved,   was   not   in   his 
handwriting.  The compliance in terms of Section 20 
of   Negotiable   Instruments   Act   and   inchoate 
documents,   has   been   strictly   adhered   to.     He 
claimed,   he   has   filed   the   complaint   petition   for 
getting   money,   against   Mahesh   and   Varsha   but,   as 
stated   earlier,   his   complaint   against   Mahesh   is 
dismissed.   In the complaint petition, there is no 

reference as  to  whether,  at  the  time  of  releasing 
money,   accused   Varsha   was   present.     On   the 
contrary,   the   complaint   indicated,   Mahesh   had 
handed over the cheque signed / drawn by Varsha to 
him,   which   suggests   that,   at   the   time   of   handing 
over   the   cheque,   Varsha   was   not   present.     The 
complainant   was   unaware   about   financial   status   of 
Varsha   or   her   activities.     He   had   no   transaction 
with her.  He did not write contents in the cheque. 

There   is   no   documents   or   even   earlier   events   to 
suggest   that   Varsha   accepted   liability   of   her 

husband by way of issuing cheque.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.580 OF 2002 

Rajendra Baburao Mahale,

Versus
Varsha Mahesh Dangarekar,

CORAM   :  K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.
DATED   :  FEBRUARY 15, 20131
Citation;2013 ALL M R (CRI)2496


Acquittal   recorded   by   learned   Judicial 
Magistrate   F.C.   on   7th  August,   2002   for   offence 
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, is 
questioned   by   the   complainant   by   preferring 
ig
Criminal   Appeal   (as   then   prevalent).     It   was 
admitted   on   26th  November,   2008.     Parties   are 
3]
referred as complainant and accused.  
The   complainant   –   Rajendra,   out   of   friendship 
with Mahesh, has, allegedly, given Rs.40,000/­ as a 
hand loan and in lieu thereof, on 15th May, 1996, a 
cheque   of   Rs.40,000/­   dated   15th  June,   1996   was 
issued to him by Mahesh.   The cheque was presented 
to the banker on due date.   Dishonour resulted in 
serving   statutory   notice   to   the   accused.     It   was 
unclaimed; followed by complaint under Section 138 
of   Negotiable   Instruments   Act   against   accused 
Varsha   and   Mahesh.     Learned   Judge,   read   the 
complaint   as   a   whole,   but   did   not   issue   process 
against   Mahesh.     Thus,   the   matter   proceeded   only 
against   accused   Varsha.     In   order   to   substantiate 
the   claim,   the   complainant   Rajendra   entered   into 

witness  box  and  placed  on record  the  cheque,  bank 
return memo, office copy of notice, postal receipt, 
postal   unserved   envelope.     In   his   examination­in­
chief,   he   has   canvassed,   both   Varsha   and   her 
husband   Mahesh   had   approached   him,   they   received 
Rs.40,000/­   and   in   discharge   thereof,   questioned 
4]
cheque was issued.
The   stand   of   accused   was,   Varsha   had   no 

monetory transaction with the complainant.   It was 
a   blank   signed   cheque.     She   did   not   fill ­in   the 
contents   thereof   and   it   has   been   misused   by   the 
complainant.   It   is   also   on   record,   her   husband   – 
Mahesh, since then, is missing and his whereabouts 
are   not   known.   In   cross­ examination,   Rajendra   has 
accepted,   he   has   earlier   transaction   with   Mahesh 
which   has   been   cleared.     This   was   subsequent   / 
second   transaction   with   Mahesh.     He   accepted   that 
he   had   no   transaction   with   Varsha.     Even,   the 
cheque   which   has   been   proved,   was   not   in   his 
handwriting.  The compliance in terms of Section 20 
of   Negotiable   Instruments   Act   and   inchoate 
documents,   has   been   strictly   adhered   to.     He 
claimed,   he   has   filed   the   complaint   petition   for 
getting   money,   against   Mahesh   and   Varsha   but,   as 
stated   earlier,   his   complaint   against   Mahesh   is 
dismissed.   In the complaint petition, there is no 

reference as  to  whether,  at  the  time  of  releasing 
money,   accused   Varsha   was   present.     On   the 
contrary,   the   complaint   indicated,   Mahesh   had 
handed over the cheque signed / drawn by Varsha to 
him,   which   suggests   that,   at   the   time   of   handing 
over   the   cheque,   Varsha   was   not   present.     The 
complainant   was   unaware   about   financial   status   of 
Varsha   or   her   activities.     He   had   no   transaction 
with her.  He did not write contents in the cheque. 

There   is   no   documents   or   even   earlier   events   to 
suggest   that   Varsha   accepted   liability   of   her 
5]
husband by way of issuing cheque.
Learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   has   placed 
reliance   on   the   judgment   in   the   case   of  I.C.D.S. 
Ltd.   Vs.   Beemna   Shabeer   and   anr.,   2002   AIR   SCW  
3358.    The   Hon’ble   Lordships   were   discussing   the 
import   of   “any   cheque”   and   “other   liability” 
referred   in   Section   138   of   Negotiable   Instruments 
Act,   making   the   scale   applicable   to   the   facts   of 
the case.  In the said case, the cheque was issued 
by   guarantor   and   in   exercise   of   Section   482   of 
Cr.P.C., the High Court had dismissed the complaint 
petition. 
6]
In   the   instant   case,   as   stated   earlier,   on 
evaluation of facts, learned Judge recorded, there 

is   no   existence   of   legal   plea   or   liability   of 
Varsha and that she had not issued cheque in person 
directly   to   the   complainant.       Taking   survey   of 
above   facts,   I   do   not   see   any   error   in   the 
acquittal   recorded   by   learned   Judicial   magistrate 
[K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.]

Print Page