IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 507/2006 Smt. Jagdishwari Sharma …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal & Ors. …….Respondents September 30, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. MA Khan, Brief Holder for the State and Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the respondent no. 3. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, CrPC), the petitioner has prayed for quashing the summoning order dated 18.11.2005 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate I, Dehradun in complaint case no. 1881/2005, Randeep Singh v. RD Sharma under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Facts, in brief, are that on 12.9.2005, the respondent no. 3 filed a complaint against the petitioner Smt. Jagdishwari Sharma and her husband alleging that on 15.6.2004, he gave them rupees one lakh on their request in the presence of their common fried Mr. DP Singh. In return, the co-accused issued a postdated cheque having no. 565474 dated 20.12.2004 to the respondent no. 3. The complainant presented the aforesaid cheque in the bank on 10.6.2005, which was dishonoured on 16.6.2005 with the endorsement “insufficient fund”. Thereafter complainant gave joint legal notice to the petitioner and other co-accused on 15.7.2005. When the money was not paid to him, then he lodged the instant complaint before the Magistrate. Learned Magistrate after recording the statement of the complainant under Section 200 CrPC and other documentary evidence filed by him, summoned the petitioner and other co-accused vide order dated 18.11.2005 to face the trial under Section 138 NI Act. Learned Counsel for the petitioner very vehemently argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this 2 case and the impugned summoning order issued against the petitioner is not correct and justified as per law. I find substance in the argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner as undisputedly the aforesaid cheque was issued by the co-accused and not by the present petitioner. Learned Counsel for the complainant also does not dispute it. Therefore, essential ingredients of Section 138 NI Act is not attracted against the petitioner and the impugned summoning order is liable to be quashed in respect of the petitioner. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner; perusal of complaint, legal notice dated 15.7.2005 and other papers available on record, I am of the view that the impugned summoning order dated 18.11.2005 is not correct and justified and the same is liable to be quashed in respect of the petitioner. Accordingly, for the reasons recorded above, the petition is allowed. Summoning order dated 18.11.2005 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate I, Dehradun in complaint case no. 1881/2005, RAndeep Singh v. RD Sharma under Section 138 of the NI Act is hereby quashed in respect of the petitioner only. (Dharam Veer, J.) 30.9.2010 PRABODH