Heard Mr. Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jharkhadi Upadhyay, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Despite valid service of notice neither the complainant opposite party no.2 has appeared in person nor any lawyer representing him has turned up to argue the matter.

3. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the CrPC”) has been filed for quashing the order dated 22.12.2009 passed in Complaint Case No.1616 of 2009 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate summoned the petitioner after taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short N.I. Act) and Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “the IPC”).

4. The complainant has alleged that the petitioner entered into an agreement with him and in pursuance thereof a Tata Sumo Victa LX vehicle was purchased in the name of the petitioner. It was agreed between the parties that they will share profit and loss in equal proportion as fifty per cent of the price of the Tata Sumo Victa LX vehicle was paid by him. His case is that a sum of rupees one lac forty five thousand was g