Non-signatory spouse liability for cheque dishonour fails where proprietorship status, demand notice, and pre-summoning safeguards are defective.

A non-signatory spouse of a sole proprietor cannot be treated as the drawer of a dishonoured cheque where she neither maintains nor signs the relevant account. The notes state that vicarious liability under Section 141 does not extend to a sole proprietorship merely because of marriage or alleged control. They further identify a demand notice seeking an amount materially different from the cheque amount as incapable of creating a valid cause of action, and require a Magistrate to conduct an inquiry or direct investigation before issuing process against an accused residing outside the court's jurisdiction. Misdescribing the business and impleading an unconnected spouse may amount to abuse of criminal process.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether deemed service and the complainant's non-appearance permitted adjudication on merits; (ii) Whether a non-signatory spouse could be prosecuted as drawer of a dishonoured cheque; (iii) Whether vicarious liability could be invoked against the spouse of a sole proprietor; (iv) Whether a demand notice seeking an amount materially different from the cheque amount was valid; (v) Whether process against an accused residing outside the Magistrate's jurisdiction could issue without the mandatory inquiry; and (vi) Whether misdescription of the business entity and the defective claim constituted abuse of process.

Issue (i): Whether deemed service and the complainant's non-appearance permitted adjudication on merits.

Analysis: Notice sent to the complainant's registered address was returned with the endorsement "Addressee Left." The presumption of service under the applicable statutory framework operated where the addressee had left without providing a forwarding address. The record contained materials of sterling quality sufficient to determine the legal sustainability of the prosecution notwithstanding the complainant's absence.

Conclusion: The complainant was validly served and its absence did not prevent adjudication of the revision on merits, in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether a non-signatory spouse could be prosecuted as drawer of a dishonoured cheque.

Analysis: The cheque was drawn on an account maintained by the sole proprietorship of the petitioner's husband, and the petitioner was neither the account holder nor the signatory. Section 138 imposes liability upon the drawer of a cheque drawn on an account maintained by that person; alleged dominion or control cannot substitute the statutory identity between drawer, signatory and account holder.

Conclusion: The petitioner could not be prosecuted as the drawer under Section 138, in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (iii): Whether vicarious liability could be invoked against the spouse of a sole proprietor.

Analysis: A sole proprietorship has no legal identity distinct from its proprietor. The statutory vicarious-liability fiction applies to a company, including a firm or association of individuals, and cannot be extended by implication to a sole proprietorship. Marriage and bald assertions of control do not establish a legal basis to arraign the proprietor's spouse.

Conclusion: Section 141 could not be invoked to impose vicarious liability on the petitioner, in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (iv): Whether a demand notice seeking an amount materially different from the cheque amount was valid.

Analysis: The dishonoured cheque was for Rs.36,07,687, whereas the statutory notice demanded Rs.7,607. Proviso (b) requires a demand for the cheque amount, so that the drawer receives a clear opportunity to make payment and avoid prosecution. The substantial mismatch failed that requirement and prevented accrual of a valid cause of action.

Conclusion: The demand notice was void ab initio and could not sustain the prosecution, in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (v): Whether process against an accused residing outside the Magistrate's jurisdiction could issue without the mandatory inquiry.

Analysis: As the petitioner resided in Karnataka while process issued from Kolkata, the Magistrate was required to postpone process and conduct an inquiry or direct investigation. This mandatory gatekeeping safeguard was bypassed, despite the materials disclosing the petitioner's lack of connection with the cheque and account.

Conclusion: The failure to conduct the mandatory inquiry vitiated the summoning order against the petitioner, in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (vi): Whether misdescription of the business entity and the defective claim constituted abuse of process.

Analysis: The complaint ambiguously described the concern as a proprietorship/partnership despite documents identifying it as a sole proprietorship, and relied on a materially mismatched demand notice. These defects were used to implead a non-signatory spouse who had no statutory connection with the dishonoured cheque, rendering the criminal process coercive and legally untenable.

Conclusion: The prosecution against the petitioner was an abuse of process and was liable to be quashed, in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner was discharged from criminal liability arising from the dishonoured cheque; the trial against the remaining accused may proceed independently.

Ratio Decidendi: A non-signatory spouse of a sole proprietor cannot be prosecuted for cheque dishonour where she neither maintains nor signs the account, Section 141 is inapplicable to the proprietorship, and the statutory notice and mandatory pre-summoning safeguards are fundamentally deficient.

---