Facts and Background:

• The Appellant, Alka Khandu Avhad, the wife of original accused No. 1. She was her co-accused in a case involving the alleged dishonour of a cheque.
• The Respondent, Amar Syamprasad Mishra, was a practising advocate and partner in a solicitor firm in Mumbai. He represented the appellant and her husband in a separate legal matter.
• The Respondent provided legal services to the appellant and her husband, issuing a professional bill for his work. In partial payment, the husband issued a post-dated cheque for ₹8,62,000, which bounced due to insufficient funds.
• After they failed to pay or respond to a legal notice, the respondent filed a complaint under Section 138, read with Section 141, of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act.
• The complaint was filed in the Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, 43rd Court, Borivali, Mumbai (C.C. No. 2802/SS/2016), which issued a process against both the appellant and her husband for the offences under Sections 138 and 141 of the NI Act.
• The Appellant then filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 2595 of 2019 in the Bombay High Court seeking to quash the complaint, arguing that she was not a signatory to the cheque and held no joint bank account. The High Court dismissed her petition, upholding that joint liability may apply under Section 141 of the NI Act.
• Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s refusal to quash the complaint.

Main issue:

Whether the Appellant can be prosecuted under Section 138, read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, despite not being a signatory to the dishonoured cheque or having a joint bank account with the issuer?