Husband’s Sentence Alone Doesn’t End Wife’s Cheque-Bounce Case Over His ₹2.1 Lakh Loan, Rajasthan HC Says

The petitioner’s husband borrowed a total of ₹2,10,000 from respondent No. 2, and the petitioner allegedly guaranteed repayment by issuing a cheque for the same amount; her husband also issued a cheque for that liability.

After both cheques were dishonoured, a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) was filed.

The trial court stated the substance of the accusation to the petitioner under Section 251 Cr.P.C. on 14 March 2018, and she pleaded not guilty.

The petitioner later failed to appear, was declared an absconder, and surrendered after learning of the warrant. Her husband was convicted and served his sentence.

By the time of this petition, the petitioner’s trial had resumed and was at the final-arguments stage.

She sought to quash the order dated 14 March 2018 and the proceedings against her, contending, among other things, that her cheque was only security for her husband’s debt.

Section 138 of the NI Act applies where a cheque is issued in respect of a legally enforceable debt or other liability and the statutory requirements are met; the breadth of “any debt or other liability” means that a guarantor’s cheque is not excluded merely because the principal debtor incurred the underlying liability (ICDS Ltd. v. Beemna Shabeer & Anr.).

Describing a cheque as a security cheque does not, by itself, determine whether Section 138 applies; the relevant question is whether it represented a legally enforceable liability in the circumstances at the relevant time.

Under Section 251 Cr.P.C., applicable to summons cases, the court states the substance of accusation and asks the accused to plead; a formal charge is not required in such proceedings.

Section 482 Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 528 BNSS) is not ordinarily used to assess disputed evidence or prematurely determine questions properly left for trial.

A person’s liability as guarantor does not, without more, establish vicarious criminal liability under Section 141 NI Act; however, that issue is distinct where the person is alleged to have issued the dishonoured cheque from their own account.

A sentence served by the principal debtor does not itself prove that the underlying debt has been paid, although the same debt cannot be recovered more than once.

The court found no procedural illegality in the trial court’s stating the substance of accusation under Section 251 Cr.P.C.

Because the petitioner was alleged to have issued and signed a cheque from her own account, her status as guarantor did not, by itself, exclude the cheque from Section 138; the vicarious-liability reasoning in Dilip Hariramani was therefore distinguishable.

Nor did the “security” label establish that the proceedings were unsustainable: although the petitioner’s cheque was presented after her husband’s cheque was dishonoured, whether it represented an enforceable liability depended on the transaction’s terms and the evidence.

The husband’s imprisonment did not establish repayment, and the record did not justify terminating the petitioner’s separate cheque proceedings on a double-recovery ground.

Given that the trial had reached final arguments, the disputed questions were appropriately left to the trial court rather than decided in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

It dismissed the petition, while leaving the petitioner at liberty to raise all available legal grounds before the trial court, which was directed to consider them on their merits and uninfluenced by the High Court’s observations.