In - charge of business.

When she is the authorized person to sign on the cheque, she will have to face it.  She has to prove she has not signed

She signed the cehque.....?

you say she is house wife only. 

she is liable.

Can she take such defence of non in-chage to escape? yes, she can.  she may be saved by proving that everything in firm including signing cheques without her knowledge/free consent, but her husband will be caught for offences of more serious nature in IPC Sections. Once a person issued cheque, signing by one partner whereas cheque can be passed if signed by two partners( at that time, he thought chque returned, with memo reasoing two partners signature required, does not come u/s 138), he was held guilty of s 138 N I Act,  as well as u/s 420 of IPC for cheating, as he knows very well, cheque will not be passed without two partners signature, yet he issued cheque with one partner signature.

This  is commonly done, husbands opening  a prop firm in the name of wife. Prop firm is nothing but the prop only, accused is only and only that wife, not even husband. S.141 is also not applicable on prop firms. There is no way she can take a defense that she did not know about cheque or matter.

I agree with all of you on this issue........

But husband and wife have fiduciary relations with each other, out of this relation husband had betrayed the confidence and trust reposed on him by issuing the cheques signed by her, to others without any arrangement. The wife definately has option to avoid any liabilty or contract which created undue advantage to others through her husband out of her fiduciary relations with her husband ( Indian Conract Act ) . 

Moreover how she can be convicted for such an offence which she never made out. She dont know even to the payee of that cheque. I think it will be injust if she is convicted for wrong doing of her husband.

Ashish,

Signature on the cheque and proof from the Bank that the lady is prop is sufficient to attach her responsibility.

I do not think she can prove that blank cheques were taken by her husband and misused, that too when the cheque is issued to a person to clear the liability of her firm. Fiduciary relationship with her husband is ok for family related matters, once a third person is involved and that too in criminal case, she cannot take this defense. It will create a big problem, almost all the proprietors can say that XYZ misused their cheques and they were not aware of this or that. Even otherwise if the husband is her GPA for business, she cannot escape her liability arising out of the cheque. Husband can always say that he delivered the cheue signed by her to clear her firm's liability. Accused can always say that he is not bothered about husband wife relationship in such professional matters. She is stuck under S.138, if she wants she can attempt to file a case of cheating against her husband. 

Agreed with Mr Trivedi.  She is in trouble because of over-clever husband

as the firm is prop. she wll alone be held responsible as all the written document showing her as a sole owner and which  are against her.

if she file case against her husband then he will claim absolute no knowledge of the case and all sign and doc. is in name of lady.

.if there is anything in writing to show that her husdand has been looking after the business then it can be used to make him party to the case but again wife will be prime accused in the case as she is prop. of the firm.