A.N. Jindal, J. —The provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.) have been invoked for quashing of the order dated 28.3.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar qua Bandeep Kaur- petitioner.

2. In brief, the allegations, as contained in the complaint, are that the petitioner and her husband (Pawandeep Singh) received a friendly loan of Rs. 7,50,000 from the respondent (Avneet Singh) and, thereafter, in order to discharge the said advance, Pawandeep Singh Grover issued various cheques with the assurance that all the said cheques will be duly honoured, if presented in the drawer bank. Out of these, one cheque No.163599 dated 1.2.2007 for a sum of Rs. 50,000 drawn on HDFC Bank limited, Civil Lines, Jalandhar issued from the joint account of the petitioner and her husband Pawandeep Singh, under the signatures of Pawandeep Singh Grover (accused No.1 in the complaint), was presented for encashment, the same was dishonoured by the Banker of the accused vide memo dated 3.2.2007 with the remarks, ‘Funds Insufficient’. Consequently, after completing the formalities, a complaint had been preferred against both the accused (the petitioner and her husband).

3. The Trial Court vide impugned order dated 28.3.2007 (Annexure P1) issued process of summoning against them to face trial. Now, the petitioner i.e., accused No. 2 has come up for quashing of the said proceedings on the ground that neither she obtained the loan, nor she is signatory of the cheque and, therefore, provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) could not be invoked against her. She has further submitted that mere having a joint bank account in the HDFC Bank with her husband is hardly sufficient to fasten her with the liability.

4. On notice of motion, respondent complainant (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) was duly served, but he has not put in appearance.

5. Section 138 of the Act refers to the payee or holder in due course of the cheque. It indicates that after the dishonour of the cheque, the drawer of the same could be brought to the dock for the fault committed by him. Section 138 of the Act reads as under:

“Section 138—Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account—Where 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, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for (a term which may be extended to two years), or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:

Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless:

(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;

(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, (within thirty days) of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and

(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.”

6. Thus, on perusal of the above, it is clear that it is the drawer of the said cheque, if he fails to make the payment on the receipt of the sai