Joint account holder liability under cheque dishonour law cannot arise without signature or personal liability, and proceedings may be quashed.

A joint account holder who did not sign the cheque cannot be prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act merely because the account was jointly held. Liability under Section 138 attaches to the drawer of the cheque, and the statutory requirements of dishonour, notice, and non-payment must be met. Where the cheque was signed only by the husband, and the complaint did not show any separate business transaction or personal liability of the petitioner, vicarious liability principles applicable to company offences under Section 141 could not be extended to her. On those facts, continuation of the criminal proceedings was treated as an abuse of process, and quashing under Section 482 was held warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether a joint account holder who did not sign the cheque can be proceeded against under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and whether the criminal proceedings against her deserved to be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Analysis: Section 138 fastens liability on the drawer of the cheque and requires the statutory ingredients of dishonour, notice, and failure to pay to be satisfied. The facts showed that the cheque was signed by the husband and not by the petitioner, though the account was jointly held. The complaint did not disclose any separate business transaction or personal liability of the petitioner, and the analogy of vicarious liability applicable to company offences under Section 141 could not be extended to a joint bank account holder. As the petitioner was sought to be prosecuted only because of her marital relationship and joint account status, continuation of the proceedings was treated as an abuse of process.

Conclusion: The petitioner could not be criminally proceeded against under Section 138 merely as a joint account holder without signature on the cheque, and quashing under Section 482 was warranted in her favour.

---