Point of Law: There is no disputes with regard to the signature on the cheuqe and her defence is that the brother-in-law had obtained her signature under the pretext that for emergency purpose this would be required for the use of the cheque in the business. There is an initial admission of the cheque, the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act would come into play. It is also not out of place to make a mention that there is no reply to the notice issued by the complainant.

JUDGMENT :

SONIA GOKANI, J.

1. This is a petition preferred for quashment of criminal complaint filed by the respondent No. 1 herein being Criminal Case No. 8905 of 2007 against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the N.I. Act hereinafter) for dishonour of cheque No. 2574257 dated 25.12.2006 drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank, Indore for Rs. 2.70 Lakh alleged to have been issued by the petitioner No. 2 on behalf of petitioner No. 1 for the goods sold to the petitioner No. 1 by the respondent No. 1.

1.1 On the ground that the transaction has found fraudulent and allegedly misused by the respondent No. 1 in an active collusion of brother-in-law of the petitioner No. 2 Shri Rajendra Singh Rajpal, the petitioner has moved this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the following reliefs:

“28.......

(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to allow the present petition and be further pleased to quash and set aside the impugned criminal complaint being Criminal Complaint No. 8905 of 2007 filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Ahmedabad (Rural).

(B) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the further proceedings of the Criminal Complaint No. 8905 of 2007 filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Ahmedabad (Rural).

(C) Such other and further orders as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted.”

1.2 The petitioner No. 2 is the wife of Mr. Trilok Singh Rajpal, whereas Mr. Rajendra Singh Rajpal is the younger brother of the husband of the petitioner No. 2 and thus brother-in-law of hers. Petitioner No. 2 married to Shri Trilok Singh Rajpal in the year 1972. Her husband was working as Assistant Engineer in Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (‘the MPEB’ for short) and Rajendra Singh Rajpal was his younger brother. He was serving as a clerk in the Punjab National Bank and was posted at Bilaspur and thereafter to Jabalpur. From 1982, he lived with the family of the petitioner No. 2. He got married in June, 1984 when the husband of the petitioner No. 2. He was serving as Divisional Engineer in the MPEB at Jabalpur.

1.3 The husband of the petitioner No. 2 helped his brother to start a new firm viz. M/s. Balaji Fasteners in Indore, where the youngest brother-in-law of the petitioner became the partner and Rajendra Singh joined as incharge when he shifted to Indore after leaving Bank’s employment at Jabalpur.

1.4 In the year 1990, Darshan Singh retired from the firm and when the partition took place, M/s. Balaji Fasteners was taken over by Rajendra Singh and petitioner No. 2 became the partner in the firm in the month of September, 1993. The factory was operating in small shed of Sector-D and M/s. Balaji Fostners was converted to M/s. Balaji Cables and shifted to a bigger plot at Plot No. 215-B, Sector F, Sanwer Road, Indore. It was leased by the District Trade and Industries Centre (DTIC) to Rajendra Singh Rajpal, proprietor of Balaji Cables.

1.5 M/s. Balaji Cables was converted into M/s. Balaji Cables Pvt. Ltd. in the year 1996, where the son of petitioner No. 2 Jasdeep Singh became the director with his uncle - Rajendra Singh Rajpal. It is averred that the petitioner No. 2 was out from Indore from July 1998 to October, 2003 and the entire control of M/s. Balaji Cable was in the hands of brother-in-law Mr. Rajendra Singh. Jasdeep Singh was not permitted to look into any of the activities, being young and nephew of Rajendra Singh. It is alleged that Rajendra singh became greedy and indulged into dishonest activities behind the back of petitioner No. 2.

1.6 It is alleged that in the year 1998, he asked the petitioner No. 2 to sign some of the documents on the ground that it is meant for the business purpose of the M/s. Balaji Cables, keeping faith in him, the petitioner No. 2 signed the papers.

1.7 It is further averred that th