JUDGMENT :

SANJAY DHAR, J.

01. The petitioner, through the medium of the present petition, has challenged the complaint filed by the respondent against him alleging commission of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred to as “Act”), which is stated to be pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udhampur (hereinafter to be referred to as “trial Magistrate”). Challenge has also been thrown to order dated 22.09.2016 whereby cognizance of offence has been taken and summons have been issued to the petitioner.

02. As per the impugned complaint, the petitioner/accused is the Managing Director, incharge and responsible for the conduct of business of M/s Noida Software Technology Park Ltd, which is running the business to provide service of satellite paid channels under the name and style of “Jainhits”. It has been alleged that the respondent is a customer of the said business and the parties have business relations for the last two years. On 15.04.2016, the petitioner/accused is stated to have demanded a loan for an amount of Rs. 23,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs) from the respondent/complainant for carrying out his business for a period of one month and he had agreed that he will repay the loan amount along with interest of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs).

03. The respondent/complainant is stated to have paid an amount of Rs. 23,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs) from his bank account maintained with UCO Bank Branch Udhampur by transferring the said amount in the account of the petitioner/accused maintained with HDFC Bank, Bikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. It is alleged that on the same day i.e., on 16.04.2016, the petitioner/accused issued a cheque in favour of the respondent/complainant for an amount of Rs. 23,00,000/- drawn on his account at HDFC Bank Branch, Bikaji Cama Place, New Delhi and its due date of honour was fixed as 15.05.2016.

04. When the respondent/complainant deposited the said cheque in his account on 29.06.2016, it was returned unpaid for the reason “account blocked”. On 20.07.2016, the respondent/complainant again deposited the said cheque with his banker at UCO Bank, Udhampur but it was dishonoured on 21.07.2016 for the reason “account blocked”.

05. A notice of demand dated 18.08.2016 was served by the respondent/complainant upon the petitioner/accused through his advocate and as per the delivery certificate, the same was received by the petitioner/accused on 22.08.2016. The petitioner did not respond to the said notice nor did he liquidate the amount of the cheque. Thus, the respondent/complainant was compelled to file the impugned complaint before the learned trial Magistrate.

06. The learned trial Magistrate after recording preliminary evidence of the petitioner/accused took cognizance of the offence and issued process against the petitioner in terms of impugned order dated 27.09.2016.

07. The petitioner has challenged the impugned complaint and the order whereby process has been issued against him on the grounds that without arraigning the company as an accused in the impugned complaint, the same cannot be proceeded with. It has been contended that the cheque has been bounced due to account being blocked, which does not form a ground for filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Act. It has also been contended that the petitioner is not a signatory to the cheque, which is subject matter of the impugned complaint, as such, without arraigning the signatories of the cheque, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted. It has further been contended that the complaint has been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation as the cheque was initially dishonoured on 29.06.2016 whereas, the demand notice has been issued on 18.08.2016. It has also been contended that there are no specific averments qua role of the petitioner in the impugned complaint.

08. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case including record of the tr