[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Naseem vs Pankaj on 7 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:399
1 MP-5309-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI
ON THE 7 th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 5309 of 2025
SMT. NASEEM
Versus
PANKAJ AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Mayank Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner.
Heard on: 08.10.2025
Delivered on:07.01.2026
ORDER
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been
filed challenging the judgment dated 19.05.2022 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in Criminal Case No. 1487/2022,
whereby the trial court disposed of the complaint under Section 138
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'N.I. Act')
through plea bargaining and convicted both the accused (husband and wife),
imposed monetary liability jointly upon them.
2. The short facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that a
complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was filed by Respondent No. 1
in respect of dishonour of Cheque No. 186257 dated 31.12.2021 for
₹5,00,000/-. The cheque was admittedly issued and signed only by Accused
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:399
2 MP-5309-2025
No. 1 (husband/Respondent No. 2). The present petitioner (wife) was arrayed
as Accused No. 2 merely because of her marital relationship with Accused
No. 1.
3. On 09.05.2022, Respondent no.2/husband filed an application under
Section 265-B Cr.P.C. for plea bargaining along with his affidavit. The
learned trial court, convicted and sentenced "the accused persons" (plural)
and imposed joint & several liability upon both to pay ₹16,00,000/- as
compensation. Being aggrieved the petitioner has preferred the present
petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner neither
filed any such application, nor filed any affidavit and never appeared before
the court for in-camera examination under Section 265-B(4) Cr.P.C., so also
never participated in the mutual satisfactory discussion under Section 265-C
Cr.P.C.Despite complete non-participation and absence of consent of the
petitioner, the trial court mechanically convicted "both the accused" and
made the petitioner jointly liable to pay ₹16,00,000/-, which is not only
without her consent but also far beyond the statutory limit of twice the
cheque amount (i.e., maximum ₹10,00,000/-) permissible under the proviso
to Section 138 N.I. Act.
5. Counsel further contended that conviction and imposition of
sentence/compensation upon a person without following mandatory
procedure and without affording any opportunity of hearing amounts to gross
violation of principles of natural justice and renders the order wholly void
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:399
3 MP-5309-2025
against the petitioner. In support of his submissions, counsel relied upon the
judgment of P.J. Joseph v. State of Kerala - 2015 (5) KHC 586 and K. Bala
Dandapani v. State of Kerala - O.P.(Crl.) No. 253 of 2014 arising out of S.T.
No. 1775 of 2014 (Kerala High Court).
6. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the
petition, annexures, and the original record of the trial court called for, this
Court finds that the impugned order suffers from patent illegality,
jurisdictional error, and gross violation of mandatory provisions of law, as
detailed hereunder:
(a) The cheque in question (₹5,00,000/-) was issued and signed solely by
Accused No. 1 (husband). The petitioner (wife) was arrayed only on account of
the marital relationship.
(b) The application for plea bargaining under Section 265-B Cr.P.C., the
supporting affidavit, and the report of mutually satisfactory discussion under
Section 265-C Cr.P.C. were filed and signed only by the husband. The
petitioner neither appeared in person, nor filed any application or affidavit, and
was never examined in-camera as mandatorily required under Section 265-B(4)
Cr.P.C.
(c) Despite complete non-participation and absence of consent of the
petitioner, the trial court mechanically convicted "both the accused" and made
the petitioner jointly liable to pay ₹16,00,000/-, which is not only without her
consent but also far beyond the statutory limit of twice the cheque amount (i.e.,
maximum ₹10,00,000/-) permissible under the proviso to Section 138 N.I. Act.
7. In these circumstances, issuance of notice to the respondents is not
required because no useful purpose would be served, and the illegality is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:399
4 MP-5309-2025
apparent on the face of the record itself.
8. Accordingly, this petition is allowed at the admission stage itself.
(i) The impugned judgment dated 19.05.2022 passed by JMFC, Indore
in Criminal Case (SCNIA) No. 1487/2022 is hereby quashed only insofar as
it relates to the present petitioner.
(ii) The conviction recorded and all directions regarding payment of
compensation/fine against the petitioner are hereby set aside.
(iii) The name of the petitioner shall stand deleted from the array of
accused in the aforesaid case.
(iv) Wherever the impugned judgment uses the expression "accused
persons" or "both the accused", it shall be read and referred only to
Respondent no.2 - Shri Wazir Ahmed Khan (husband).
(v) The impugned judgment dated 19.05.2022 shall remain intact and
operative against Respondent no.2/husband, who has not challenged it.
9. Petition stands partly allowed and disposed of accordingly.
No order as to costs.
(ALOK AWASTHI)
JUDGE
sumathi
