1. In December 2000 Gurbachan Singh, since deceased who happened to be the husband of petitioner No. 2 and father of petitioner No. 1 made a request to the respondent for a friendly loan of Rs. 4 lacs as he was going through some bad phase and needed some money for his business. Respondent advanced loan of Rs. 4 lacs in two installments in December, 2000. Gurbachan Singh issued three post- dated cheques bearing No. 685442 dated 5.1.2004 for Rs. 1,00,000/-, 685443 dated 5.1.2004 for Rs. 1,00,000/- and 685444 dated 15.1.2004 for Rs. 2,00,000/- drawn on Federal Bank Limited, Civil Line, Agra, in favour of respondent as an assurance for repayment of the loan. Gurbachan Singh expired on 15.1.2001. After his death respondent approached the petitioners in January, 2004 and asked them to repay the friendly loan of Rs. 4 lacs. The cheques were not presented for encashment on the request of the petitioners as they were not having sufficient funds. Thereafter respondent continued to request the petitioners to repay the friendly loan amount. But the petitioners did not repay the loan amount taken by Gurbachan Singh and also allegedly by petitioner No. 2. A legal notice dated 26.12.2006 was served upon the petitioners and a reminder was sent on 8.2.2007. Since petitioners failed to pay the loan amount, respondent filed a complaint under Sections 406/420 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) against the petitioners.

2. Learned trial court vide its order dated 16.10.2007 took cognizance of offence under Section 406 IPC and summoned both the petitioners. Aggrieved by the said order of the trial court, present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the complaint as well as the impugned summoning order of the MM.

3. Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that cause of action for filing the complaint arose in December 2000 whereas the complaint was filed in June 2007 and was hopelessly barred by period of limitation at the time when it was presented and also that complaint does not disclose any cause of action, is frivolous, vexatious and oppressive. It is further argued that the loan, if any, advanced to Gurbachan Singh ensued civil liability and no offence within the meaning of Section 406 IPC is shown to have been committed by the petitioners. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no particulars of the alleged cash payment of Rs. 4 lacs in two installments have been provided in the complaint and that the respondent allegedly secured the loan amount by taking alleged post-dated cheques against the alleged loan in no manner attracts the provisions of Section 406 IPC. Since there was no breach of trust, no offence under Section 406 IPC is made out.

4. Jurisdiction of this Court is also disputed by the petitioners as according to them no part of cause of action arose in Delhi. The cheques were issued at Agra and petitioners were resident of Agra at the time of issuance of the cheques.

5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent who happened to be a close relative of the petitioners managed to lay his hands on the cheque book of deceased Gurbachan Singh after his death and misused the cheques by forging the signatures of Gurbachan Singh with ulterior motives to defraud and cheat the petitioners. The complaint having been filed malafidely, learned MM failed to appreciate the evidence and the facts pleaded in the complaint and acted mechanically while passing the impugned order. Therefore, neither the complaint nor the summoning order dated 16.10.2007 are sustainable and are liable to be quashed. 6. Mr. Manish Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent, has submitted that petitioner No. 2 along with Gurbachan Singh had approached the respondent for the said loan of Rs. 4 lacs and she had also assured that the loan amount would be paid after some time. She became dishonest after the death