ORDER

1. Heard Mr. H.M. Singh, Learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The Appellant is aggrieved by the order of the High Court dated 17.8.2007 passed in Criminal M.C. No. 137/2004 in and by which the High Court quashed the complaint filed by the Appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as against the Respondents.

2. To trace the brief facts, the Appellant claimed that it entered into an agreement of sale on 4.3.2003 with M/s. A.D. Exports Private Limited for the sale of an undescribed property at Hansi, District Hisar in the State of Haryana for Rs. 74,86,000/- against which the said M/s. A.D. Exports Private Limited agreed to pay earnest money of Rs. 44,86,000/- and gave a pay order drawn on first Respondent Bank. The pay order was presented on 5.3.2003 and it was returned on 12.3.2003 with the endorsement "refer to drawer, account attached". The complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act came to be filed on 6.5.2003. Summons were issued on the Respondents on 7.5.2003. Application for recalling the summons was filed by the Respondents on 9.6.2003, in which the learned Trial Magistrate passed orders on 1.11.2003 dropping the proceedings as against Respondent No. 1 and retaining the same as against Respondent No. 2. However, the Respondents filed petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. in the High Court for quashing of the whole of the complaint on the ground that Section138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act itself was not applicable to the case on hand. By the impugned order the learned Judge accepted the stand of the Respondents to quash the complaint in its entirety. That is how the Appellant is aggrieved and has come forward with this appeal.

3. Mr. Singh, Learned Counsel for the Appellant, in his submission contended that the pay order issued by the bank is nonetheless a cheque satisfying the definition of 'cheque' under Section 6 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and, therefore, complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was maintainable before the Trial Court. Learned Counsel relied upon a decision of this Court in Punjab and Sind Bank v. Vinkar Sahakari Bank Limited and Ors. reported in 2001 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 245 : (2001) 7 SCC 721, in support of his submissions.

4. Mr. Divan, learned senior counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, in his submissions, in the foremost, pointed out that there were lot of doubts as to the very basis on which the pay order was secured by M/s. A.D. Exports Private Limited and issued to the Appellant, inasmuch as the Appellant did not come forward with the full description of the property with reference to which the agreement was stated to have been reached on 4.3.2003 for a huge sale consideration of Rs. 74,86,000/-, for which pay order for the value of Rs.44,86,000/- was handed over on condition of delivery of the document of title and possession. Learned senior counsel further contended that de hors the said serious doubt as regards the genuineness of the very transaction as between the Appellant and M/s. A.D. Exports Private Limited, the other question which looms large before this Court is as to the very applicability of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, inasmuch as none of the ingredients specified in the said Section gets attracted in respect of a pay order issued by the bank and for honoring payment secured under the pay order for which invocation of Section 136 (138?) of the Negotiable Instruments Act may not be the proper remedy at all. It was also submitted that when on behalf of the Respondents application was moved for recalling the summoning order dated 7.5.2003, by order dated 1.11.2003, proceedings as against Respondent No. 1 were dropped and the Appellant did not take any steps to challenge the said order passed by the learned Magistrate.

5. When we consider the above submissions and the development that had taken place after t