Pretty @ Simpy vs Gurmeet Singh

Sabina, J.—This petition has been filed by the petitioner u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of criminal complaint No. 161-2 dated 18.4.2010 titled as Gurmeet Singh vs. Pretty (Annexure P-3) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including summoning order dated 2.7.2010 (Annexure P-4). Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was matrimonial dispute going on between the petitioner and her husband. In fact, husband of the petitioner had opened a bank account in her name and in good faith she had signed some blank cheques, while she was living with her husband. However, later on petitioner had been forced to leave the matrimonial home. Now the cheques in question which had been signed by the petitioner in blank, had been misused by the husband of the petitioner in connivance with the complainant and the complaints u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short- "the Act") have been filed against the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has opposed the petition.

In the present case, respondent has filed the complaint in question against the petitioner with regard to dishonour of cheque dated 8.10.2009 in the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- When the said cheque was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured by the bank with the remarks "Funds Insufficient". Petitioner has been summoned to face the trial with regard to commission of offence punishable u/s 138 of the Act after the complainant led his preliminary evidence. The plea taken by the petitioner that the blank cheques issued by her had been misused by her husband in connivance with the complainant can be gone into by the trial Court after the petitioner leads her evidence in this regard. However, at this stage, it would not be just and expedient to scuttle the criminal proceedings on the plea taken by the petitioner that the blank cheques had been misused by her husband because there was some matrimonial litigation pending between the petitioner and her husband.

Petitioner would be at liberty to take up all the pleas available to her during trial. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.