R.D. Kothari, J.

Common oral judgment in Misc. Criminal Application No. 14179 of 2009 and Misc. Criminal Application No. 14180 of 2009:

1. The petitioner herein prays to quash the complaint i.e. Case Nos. 1279 of 2009 and 3715 of 2008 pending before Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. Complaints are for the offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The facts are unusual, sad and startling. One Shashikumar Purushottam Mohta is the complainant. It is say of the complainant that present petitioner, who is mother of the complainant, has issued cheque of Rs. 2 crores in favour of the present complainant. Giving intimation by the bank to the complainant that account holder i.e. present petitioner has given instruction of - "stop payment". Complainant had issued notice to the petitioner and has filed a criminal case against his own mother.

2. Heard the learned Advocate for the parties.

3. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjanwala has submitted that case of the complainant on the face of it is unacceptable. In his opinion, say of the complainant is absurd. Main submission are two-folds; firstly, that cheque is not issued by the petitioner in discharging of any liability or debt, hence, no presumption could be raised under Sec.139 of the Act and secondly, on merits also, if one reads closely material on record, it would appear that say of the complainant is nothing but false. In the circumstances of the present case, it was submitted that this Court should quash the proceeding in exercise of inherent power.

4. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the complainant vehemently opposed the present petition. In support of the submissions, learned Advocate for the complainant has drawn attention to complaint filed before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. It is fairly lengthy complaint. Attention was drawn to Para 10 and other Paras. Learned Advocate has also drawn attention to affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent No. 2. Attention was drawn to Paras 6, 8, 12 and other parts of the affidavit. Attention was also drawn to written submissions submitted earlier by the respondent (Page 106). In this written submissions, attention was drawn to Paras 19 and 20, wherein respondent No. 2 has referred and relied on Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned Advocate for the respondent has submitted that question sought to be raised by the petitioner cannot be considered by this Court in exercise of power under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. The case against the present petitioner can be considered at the time of trial. Learned Advocate has also drawn attention to Shree Meenakshisunderam Textile Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, reported in, 2012 (0) GLHEL-HC 226625, Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, reported in, 2010 (0) GLHEL-SC 48349 and M/s. M.M.T.C. Limited v. M/s. Medchl Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd., reported in, AIR 2002 SC 182.

5. Relevant materials on record are thus:

"5-8-2008 - Date of cheque

7-10-2008 - Date of presenting cheque before the bank

9-8-2008 - Letter by the petitioner to the complainant calling upon later to hand over all the papers of business and financial affairs. She also says to return the blank cheques and blank papers.

26-8-2008 - R.P.A.D. notice by the complainant to the petitioner and other brother of the complainant wherein the complainant asked for dissolution for II.U.F. properties.

30-8-2008 - Notice by the complainant to the petitioner and other brother calling upon petitioner to make payment for rendering personal and professional service by him including protecting the properties. The complainant demands Rs. 14 crores.

22-9-2008 - Reply of complainant's notice by the petitioner dated 30-8-2008

25-9-2008 - Letter by the petitioner addressed to Manager, Punjab National Bank intimating not to make payment (stop payment) and not to honour any cheque of the above referred account number.

3-10-2008 - Letter by the petitioner to P.I. Navrangpura Police Station drawing attention of said authority about po