The accused, Sunaina Chauhan, allegedly requested the complainant, Sanjeev Chugh, for a loan of Rs 2.50 crore, the Punjab and Haryana High Court noted. (Image generated using AI)Punjab and Haryana High Court news: Observing that a husband cannot evade liability after issuing cheques for his wife’s debt, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld a couple’s conviction in a Rs 2.07 crore loan dispute case and directed them to pay Rs 5.75 crore, besides undergoing rigorous imprisonment of one year.Justice Subhas Mehla was hearing the revision petition of the couple challenging the previous court’s order of rigorous imprisonment of one and a half years along with a total compensation of Rs 5.75 crore. Justice Subhas Mehla said the filing of two separate complaints was necessary in the matter, considering the distinct nature of the cheques involved. (Image enhanced using AI)“It is not a case where liability is being imputed upon Rakesh Chauhan (husband) merely by virtue of his marital relationship with Sunaina Chauhan; rather, it is a case where he consciously and voluntarily assumed such liability by issuing the cheques in question towards the discharge of his wife’s debt,” the high court said in its March 27 order.Also Read | Disciplined force, higher standards: Punjab and Haryana High Court upholds candidate’s rejection over criminal trial‘Loan, cheque bounce and trials’As per the prosecution, the accused, Sunaina Chauhan, requested the complainant, Sanjeev Chugh, for a loan of Rs 2.50 crore for investment purposes.The complainant extended a loan of Rs 2.07 crore through bank transactions, and Rs 7 lakh was advanced in cash.The accused claimed that the said amount, borrowed as a loan, was returned in cash.However, it was alleged that to discharge the said liability, certain cheques were allegedly issued by accused Sunaina, and some were issued jointly by both Sunaina and her husband, Rakesh.All the cheques were allegedly dishonoured. After giving due legal notice and completing all formalities, the complainant lodged cases against the woman as well as jointly against the couple.In both cases, the accused were convicted and received rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, along with a fine equivalent to the cheque amount.Also Read | Why Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected man’s pre-arrest bail plea despite ‘settlement’ in assault caseSunaina appealed against the order of conviction and sentence before the sessions court, which dismissed the appeal in January 2024.Aggrieved, the couple approached the high court, whereby both revision pleas were remanded back to the sessions court to be heard afresh on the ground that the judgments were passed in the absence of the accused.This time, the sessions court, by an April 2025 order, enhanced the award and conviction by partly allowing the appeal of the complainant.In the criminal revision pleas filed by the accused, a coordinate bench of the high court suspended the sentences in May 15, 2025, as well as the payment of compensation in both cases.Aggrieved by the same, the complainant approached the Supreme Court with a special leave petition (SLP) in December 2025, which directed the accused to deposit a sum of Rs 2 crore with the revisional court within two weeks from the date of the order, and to furnish security for the remaining amount.The matter then continued before the high court.‘Public confidence will be eroded’Given the nature of the relationship between the parties, being that of husband and wife, the law does not treat the transaction in isolation to permit evasion of liability on a technical plea, the Punjab and Haryana High Court observed.Permitting a person to issue a cheque in discharge of another’s liability and thereafter escape liability upon its dishonour by claiming absence of a legally enforceable debt would create a significant loophole in law.It would erode public confidence in cheques as a reliable and legally enforceable mode of payment, thereby defeating the object of ensuring credibility and sanctity in commercial transactions.The filing of two separate complaints was necessary, considering the distinct nature of the cheques forming the subject matter of the proceedings.Merely because the cheques emanate from a common transaction would not render the filing of separate complaints impermissible, particularly when the liability is not uniform against all accused in respect of each cheque.The accused should undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and compensation of Rs 1.75 crore, and for the other complaint, they should pay a compensation of Rs 4 crore.The couple are directed to surrender before the trial court within two weeks from the date of this order.‘No legally enforceable debt’Appearing for the couple, senior advocate Vinod Ghai argued that no liability exists against the husband as there is no legally enforceable debt against him, as the loan was availed by his wife.Since there existed no legally enforceable debt against him, even if the cheque signed by him was dishonoured.Both complaints have been filed by the complainant with mala fide intention, as the debt had already been returned by the end of 2015.The accused had made an application for exemption from appearance on medical grounds as the husband was a heart patient.The said enhancements in conviction and award do not hold good in law as they were not based on the merits of the case, but they were based on the non-appearance of the couple, and the enhancement was more punitive than in the interest of justice.Also Read | ‘Man in shock can’t collect bills’: Punjab and Haryana High Court triples injured cop’s payout to Rs 14 lakhThe complaints were filed in 2018, and there was no reason for the complainant to wait for three years for the debt to be repaid.The complainant had actually misused the cheques tendered by the accused person as security cheques at the time of availing the loan.He further contended that the complainant should not have filed two separate complaints, as the matter pertains to the same debt of Rs 2 crore 7 lakh.It is a settled principle of law that more than one complaint cannot be filed arising out of the same cause of action.Given the same, the trial court should have considered both complaints as one, and pronounced a single verdict in both of them.Hence, he prayed that these judgments do not hold good in law as they go against the basic rule of law.‘Mental, financial suffering’Senior advocate Akshay Kumar Jindal, appearing for the complainant, argued that the accused’s claim to have returned the whole amount of debt, along with interest in cash, is unbelievable when the loan was extended through bank transactions.They have been unable to show how they came into the possession of such a huge amount of cash before the trial court.As far as the filing of two separate complaints is concerned, it was contended that the same was based on the fact that there were five cheques tendered by the wife alone, and two cheques were tendered jointly by both husband and wife.As soon as Rakesh, the husband, tendered a cheque to discharge the liability towards his wife, he also assumed the debt to himself.Moreover, given the nature of their relationship, as that of husband and wife, the law treats them as one unit.It is not the case that the liability is being shadowed onto Rakesh simply on account of being the husband of the accused, rather the case is that he himself assumed that liability by tendering a cheque towards his wife’s liability.The complainant has also suffered the loss of multiple avenues, towards which he may have invested his hard-earned money and reaped its gains.Instead, he placed his faith in the accused, resulting in him being harassed mentally as well as financially to seek what was rightfully owed to him.The enhancement of the sentence was not excessive, but it was in the interest of justiceRicha Sahay is a Legal Correspondent for The Indian Express, where she focuses on simplifying the complexities of the Indian judicial system. A law postgraduate, she leverages her advanced legal education to bridge the gap between technical court rulings and public understanding, ensuring that readers stay informed about the rapidly evolving legal landscape. Expertise Advanced Legal Education: As a law postgraduate, Richa possesses the academic depth required to interpret intricate statutes and constitutional nuances. Her background allows her to provide more than just summaries; she offers context-driven analysis of how legal changes impact the average citizen. Specialized Beat: She operates at the intersection of law and public policy, focusing on: Judicial Updates: Providing timely reports on orders from the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts. Legal Simplification: Translating dense "legalese" into accessible, engaging narratives without sacrificing factual accuracy. Legislative Changes: Monitoring new bills, amendments, and regulatory shifts that shape Indian society. ... Read More © IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd