NEETA GUPTA [Petitioner] Vs. SUMAN ANAND [Respondent]
CRL.M.C. 2067/2023 and CRL.M.A. 7841/2023
(CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
Facts: By way of present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of Complaint Case No.19930/2016 titled “Suman Anand vs Neeta Gupta” instituted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereafter, ‘NI Act’), pending before learned MM, North-West, Rohini, Delhi.
Issue: Whether a joint account-holder can be prosecuted unless the cheque has been signed by each and every person who is a joint account-holder?
Arguments on behalf of counsel for petitioner:
The petitioner denies receipt of demand notice and claims that she became aware about the complaint case for the first time in November, 2022. She even denies receipt of any summons. It is further claimed that the subject cheque was issued by her late husband- Arvind Gupta. Although the cheque was issued from a joint account but the subject cheque did not bear her signature and thus, the complaint filed against her was not maintainable. It is further submitted that the amount provided by the respondent was adjusted as part sale consideration towards sale of a flat bearing no. C-703, measuring 1770 sq.ft. situated at Ansal Heights, Sector-92, Gurgaon, Haryana to the real sister-in-law of the respondent, at the request of the respondent herself.
Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondent:
Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and submits that the petitioner was liable to pay the amount, having taken the same as a friendly loan, with a promise to repay. It is further submitted that the statutory notice dated 02.07.2016 was sent to the petitioner however, she refused to receive the same and thus, it would be deemed that the petitioner was duly served.
Held: The court allowed the present petition and held that, “In the present case, the issue whether the statutory notice was issued, in view of the factual situation wherein the respondent states that the petitioner refused to accept notice while the petitioner states that no such notice was received, is a matter of trial. However, the complaint case must fail owing to a more fundamental issue. The subject cheque, copy of which has been placed on record, was signed only by petitioner’s late husband Arvind Gupta. Although it is conceded that the cheque was issued from an account jointly in the name of the Arvind Gupta and Neeta Gupta (petitioner herein) however, it is a matter of fact that the said cheque is not signed by the petitioner.”
