IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc.39641-M of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 26, 2008 MEENA SADANA ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS M/S JUPITER TANNING COMPANY .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. IPS Kohli, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate, for respondent. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, seeks quashing of Criminal Complaint No.1140/2/06 titled M/s Jupiter Tanning Company v. Meena Sadana, (Annexure P-5) pending in the court of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, and summoning order dated 13.1.2007 (Annexure P-6). The facts are that the respondent filed a complaint for commission of offence under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act'). Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement with regard to the fact that cheque dated 28.4.2006 was given to the respondent. The cheque was presented in the Bank on 28.10.2006 by the respondent. The collecting bank sent a memo to the respondent on 30.10.2006 indicating “insufficient funds”. However, subsequently, when Criminal Misc.39641-M of 2007 2 the petitioner approached the Bank, the certificate (Annexure P-7) has been given which indicates that the cheque was outdated. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act cannot be allowed to continue as the same are against the mandate of provisions of Section 138 of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondent states that the liability has been admitted by the petitioner-accused. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. On a consideration of facts, it becomes clear that the cheque became outdated on 27.10.2006, which however, was presented on 28.10.2006 to the collecting Bank. Rather, it was required to be presented to the drawee Bank during the period when it was still relevant and was a negotiable instrument. Section 138(a) of the Act reads as under:- “Section 138(a) : The cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier.” In view of the admitted fact that the cheque was required to be presented to the Bank within the period of six months from the date on which it was drawn or within the period of its validity, which was not done the continuance of the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of Court. The petition is, accordingly, allowed. Criminal Complaint Criminal Misc.39641-M of 2007 3 No.1140/2/06 titled M/s Jupiter Tanning Company v. Meena Sadana, (Annexure P-5) pending in the court of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, and summoning order dated 13.1.2007 (Annexure P-6) are quashed. August 26, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE