IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-14429 of 2008 (O/M). Date of Decision : September 23, 2009. Mrs. Rita Rani ...... Petitioner. Versus. Sunrise Immigration Consultants (P) Ltd., and another ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Ms. Rajwinder Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Singh, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner, praying for quashing of complaint dated 24.12.2004 (Annexure-P-1) qua the petitioner on the ground that no offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), is made out as she is not the drawer of the cheque nor is it out of her account, which is maintained by her in a Bank. It is her contention that the petitioner has been arrayed an accused for the reason that there is a joint agreement entered into by her and her husband, who is also an accused in the complaint. As a matter of fact, the cheque has been issued by the husband of petitioner namely Nirmal Kumar Sharma from his own account, which was maintained by him. She on this basis prays that the complaint and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom deserve to be quashed qua the petitioner. Criminal Misc. No. M-14429 of 2008. Counsel for respondent No. 1-complainant submits that there is a written agreement dated 28.02.2003 entered into between the parties. According to the said agreement, both the petitioner and her husband namely Nirmal Kumar Sharma are signatories. He further submits that the cheque in question was handed over by the petitioner to the complainant, therefore, she is fully liable under the provisions of Section 138 of the Act. He further presses into service Section 34 I.P.C. to contend that the petitioner would be covered as an accused under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 34 I.P.C. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. Section 138 of the Act under which the offence, if any, is culled out or the complaint can be filed clearly specifies that a any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge of a part or whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, if the same is dishonoured, would be liable for punishment a specified therein. The provisions of Section 138 of the Act are clear and specific as it pertains to a drawer of the cheque as the liability of the drawer of the cheque on an account maintained by him. Both the conditions as prescribed under Section 138 of the Act are not fulfilled qua the petitioner as she is neither the drawer of the cheque nor holding an account and maintaining the same of which the cheque was issued. The provisions of Section 34 I.P.C. cannot be imported into the provisions of Section 138 of the Act, which does not provide for applicability of the Indian Penal Code as far as offence under Section 138 of the Act is concerned. -2- Criminal Misc. No. M-14429 of 2008. In view of specific provisions of Section 138 of the Act, complaint filed against the petitioner by respondent, cannot be sustained and the same alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioner is quashed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE September 23, 2009. sjks. -3-