Smt. Renu Mittal vs Jitender and Another

Sabina, J.—The petitioner has filed this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the order dated 19.05.2007

(Annexure P-3) passed by the Court of Revision whereby the revision petition filed by the respondents was allowed and the summoning order

passed by the trial Court dated 19.05.2007 was set aside. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant

petition deserves to be dismissed.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge while allowing the petition has held as under:-

At the time of arguments, counsel for the petitioners touched only the law point and rightly so. It was argued that the petitioners could not be held

liable merely because they had a joint account with Ram Saran. There was nothing on record to show that any joint business was being run by the

petitioners with the deceased and that the bank account pertained to any joint Hindu family business. It was rightly argued that mere existence of a

joint account cannot make the survivors liable if the person who issued the cheque was dead. Even otherwise if joint business was not proved, the

liability could be only of the person who issued the cheque and not the other joint account holders. Reliance was placed in this regard on the

authorities reported as Savita H. Sorle and others Vs. Rajesh Damidar Sarode and another 2006(3) R.C.R. (Crl.) 21. Dharmendera Kumbhat &

Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2005(1) CCC 768. Smt. Bandeep Kaur Vs. S.Avneet Singh 2008(2) R.C.R. (Crl.), 82 and Devi Vs. Haridar

2004(4) R.C.R. (Crl.) 641. The legal representative at Ram Saran could not be proceeded against only because they had a joint account with him.

The authority relied on by the trial court in the judgment reported as S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla and anr. 2005(4) R.C.R.

(Crl.) 141 will not be applicable because in that case also as in the case of U.P. Pollution Control Board (Supra), the cheque was issued by a

company and it was held that the persons responsible for conduct of the business of the company would be liable. In the present case the

complainant failed to show that there was any joint business run by the deceased with his son and daughter-in-law, much less giving the name of

the firm, if any.

Also it is not explained by the complainant as to from where he had taken a huge amount of money of the tune of Rs. 10,70,000/-to pay it off hand

to the deceased. This point would otherwise be meaningless in view of the discussion made above. The petitioners, therefore, cannot be held liable

in any way. The mere fact that they are the legal representatives of the deceased, liability cannot be fastened on them. The complainant miserably

failed to prove that there was any joint Hindu family business, the liabilities of which the petitioners were required to discharge or for that matter

Ram Saran had taken the loan for the joint business and issued the cheque in discharge of that liability.

The reasons given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while allowing the revision petition are sound reasons. Learned counsel for the

petitioner has failed to point out any mis-reading of evidence by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while passing the impugned order dated

19.05.2008. Since the complainant had failed to prima facie establish that the respondents were running a joint business with deceased Ram Saran,

who had issued the cheque and the liability of Ram Saran and petitioner was joint, the Additional Sessions Judge rightly held that the complaint qua

the respondents was liable to be dismissed. Although Ram Saran had issued the cheque from joint account but it could not be established that the

respondents were also jointly liable with Ram Saran qua the cheque amount in question. In these circumstances, no ground for interference is made

out. Dismissed.