IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-14951 of 2008 (O/M). Date of Decision : October 07, 2009. Santosh Rani ...... Petitioner(s) . Versus. Kamla Devi ..... Respondent(s). CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. M.K. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) . Mr. Baljinder Singh , Advocate, for the respondent. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). The present petition has been preferred by Santosh Rani- petitioner, wherein she is praying for quashing of complaint No. 222 dated 08.10.2007 (Annexure-P-1) titled as Kamla Devi Versus S.D. Cables etc. and summoning order dated 08.10.2007 (Annexure-P-3), passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ropar. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the cheque, which had been issued, is through S.D. Cables, which is the sole proprietorship of her husband Diwan Chand Chammi. It is further contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is wife of the proprietor of S.D. Cables, who is accused No. 1 and the petitioner has been arrayed as accused No. 2 in the complaint. Neither the cheque had been issued by her nor is she account holder, from where the cheque had been issued. On this basis, prayer for quashing of complaint qua the petitioner, who is accused No. 2 in the complaint, has been made. Criminal Misc. No. M-14951 of 2008. Counsel for the petitioner states that the only allegation against the petitioner in the complaint, which could show the petitioner as an accused, is that the cheque was handed over by the petitioner to the complainant. He contends that as per provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), no offence against the petitioner is made out, even if it is accepted that the cheque was handed over by the petitioner, although, the same is denied. He submits, as per provisions of Section 138 of the Act, a person is to be liable under the provisions, if a cheque is drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a Banker for payment of any amount of money to any person from out of that account for the discharge in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. None of the conditions as has been mentioned in the provisions of Section 138 of the Act with regard to cheque or issuance thereof are fulfilled qua the petitioner and, therefore, no offence having been found against the petitioner in the complaint, the complaint qua the petitioner deserves to be quashed. Counsel for respondent on the other hand submits that the petitioner is the actual person, who is operating the proprietorship, although, it may be in the name of her husband. He, however, is unable to dispute the fact that the cheque in question had neither been issued by the petitioner nor the account from where the cheque was issued, is maintained by her. In view of the factual position and provisions as contained in Section 138 of Act, no offence is made out against the petitioner and, therefore, complaint qua the petitioner, who is accused No. 2 in the complaint No. 222, dated 08.10.2007 (Annexure-P-1) is hereby quashed. It -2- Criminal Misc. No. M-14951 of 2008. goes without saying that as a consequence thereof, the summoning order dated 08.10.2007 (Annexure-P-3) qua the petitioner also stands quashed. In above terms, the present petition is allowed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE October 07, 2009. sjks. -3-