Instruction of criminal proceedings against a spouse for dishonoured cheques issued exclusively by the other spouse is an abuse of process.

The Petitioner (Nutan Verma) sought to quash an order dated 11.09.2018 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada, which took cognizance of offences under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (N.I.) Act

The Complainant (Opposite Party No. 2) alleged that the Petitioner and her husband, Saurav Kumar Verma, obtained a cash loan of Rs. 4,50,000/- to purchase a vehicle

A cheque for Rs. 5,00,000/- was subsequently issued by the husband, which was dishonored upon presentation

The Petitioner argued she was implicated solely due to her matrimonial status, noting that the cheque was signed exclusively by her husband and the legal notice was addressed only to him

Furthermore, evidence suggested the Petitioner had been living separately from her husband since 2017 due to matrimonial discord

1. Whether the criminal proceedings against the Petitioner constitute an abuse of the process of law given that the dishonored cheque was issued and signed exclusively by her husband.

2. Whether the allegations in the FIR and the material on record prima facie constitute any offence against the Petitioner under Sections 406, 420 IPC and Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

The court primarily applied the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) to prevent the abuse of the process of any court

It relied on the landmark precedents of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335], which established specific categories where criminal proceedings may be quashed, including cases where allegations do not disclose a cognizable offence or are maliciously instituted

Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra [(2021) 19 SCC 401] regarding the limits of quashing powers

The court also considered the statutory requirements of Section 138 of the N.I. Act, which necessitates the issuance of a legal demand notice to the drawer of the cheque

The Court examined the documents and found that the cheque in question was issued under the exclusive signature of the husband, Saurav Kumar Verma, and not the Petitioner

Crucially, the legal notice dated 27.03.2017, a mandatory prerequisite for prosecution under the N.I. Act, was sent only to the husband and raised no demand against the Petitioner

The Court noted the existence of matrimonial discord and separate living arrangements since 2017, supported by a separate FIR (Annexure-2), which undermined the allegation of joint liability

Applying the guidelines from Bhajan Lal, specifically categories (1), (3), and (7), the Court reasoned that even if the FIR allegations were accepted at face value, they failed to disclose a prima facie case against the Petitioner for cheating or breach of trust, as she was neither the drawer of the instrument nor the primary party to the financial default

The Court quashed and set aside the order of cognizance dated 11.09.2018 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada, as it pertained specifically to Nutan Verma. The application was allowed, and the trial court was directed to be informed of the judgment forthwith