High Court: Can’t hold wife liable for cheque issued by husband
Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, December 1
Making it clear that legal culpability rests solely on the party endorsing the cheque, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that wives cannot be held liable for cheques drawn by their husbands from joint accounts shared by both spouses.
Can’t be blamed for other’s action: Court
- The ruling by Justice NS Shekhawat, signifying that one spouse cannot be held liable for the action of the other, came on a petition filed by a wife for quashing a complaint in a cheque bounce case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
- The judgment is significant as it hinges on the notion that mere association with a joint account does not automatically translate into shared responsibility for all transactions from that account
The ruling by Justice NS Shekhawat, signifying that one spouse cannot be held liable for the action of the other, came on a petition filed by a wife for quashing a complaint in a cheque bounce case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Directions were also sought for quashing the summoning order and all subsequent proceedings.
Justice Shekhawat’s Bench, among other things, was told that the petitioner was arrayed as an accused only on the ground that she and her husband were joint holders of an account from which the cheque was issued. She was not a signatory to the cheque. The petitioner could not have been summoned in the present case only on the ground that the cheque was issued from the joint account, her counsel had added.
Referring to Section 138, Justice Shekhawat asserted it was the drawer of the cheque, who could be prosecuted following his failure to make the payment on receipt of the statutory notice. The cheque was signed by the husband alone. The liability regarding its dishonour could be fastened only on the drawer, even though it was drawn on a joint bank account of the petitioner and her husband.
Justice Shekhawat ruled: “The cheque in question was issued by the petitioner’s husband in discharge of his liability and not by her. She was admittedly not the drawer. The mere fact that the petitioner happens to be the spouse of the co-accused is hardly sufficient to condemn her as co-accused with him. Even, from the scheme of the Act, it is apparent that there is no provision in the Act regarding taking cognizance against a person other than the `drawer’ of the cheque”.
Justice Shekhawat added the only exception was in case the person committing the offence under Section 138 was a company. The person in-charge as well as the company would be deemed guilty of the offence as provided under Section 141 of the Act.
“It will be safe to observe that the petitioner is not liable for the cheque drawn by her husband from the joint account relating to both of them. However, the proceedings may continue against the husband as he had signed the cheque in question,” Justice Shekhawat concluded.
The judgment is significant as it hinges on the notion that mere association with a joint account does not automatically translate into shared responsibility for all transactions conducted from that account.
