Rajesh Bindel, J.

1. This order will dispose of a bunch of five quashing petitions bearing Nos.34728M, 37559M, 37562M, 37565M and 37568M of 2000 filed bythe petitioners which arise out of five different complaints filed by the respondent No.2 in case of different cheques issued by petitioner No.1 firm to the respondent No.2 complainant. The facts are being noticed from Criminal Misc. No, 37562M of 2000.

2. The prayer in the petition is for quashing of complaint filed by respondent No.2 complainant u/s. 138 Of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on account of non-clearance of the cheque issued by petitioner No. 1 Firm.

3. Briefly, the facts as stated in the complaint are that a cheque bearing No.5800242 dated 17.04.1999 drawn Ott Dena Bank, Rampura, Surat for an amount of Rs. 1,32,481.00 was issued by the petitioner No.1 to the complainant. The cheque was presented by the complainant through its banket to the Bank of the petitioner and the same was returned unpaid vide memo dated 20.04.1999 with the objection exceeds arrangement. No notice for dishounour of the cheque was issued by respondent No.2 complainant. However, the cheque was presented again by complainant and the same was returned uncleared vide memo dated 17.09.1999 with the objection Sign jointly. On account of non-clearance of the cheque, the respondent No.2-complainant got notice issued to the petitioners u/s. 138 of the Act ott 1.10.1999. The notice issued by respondent No.2 complainant remained Unreplied. A complaint was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class on 18.11.1999 within the period of limitation. After preliminary evidence, the petitioners were summoned to face trial vide order dated 25.05.2000. It is at this stage that the petitioners approached this Court for quashing of the complaint filed by respondent No.2 complainant and also the summoning order dated 25.05.2000.

4. In the above factual matrix, relief for quashing of the complaint is sought by the petitioners on the grOund that the Court at Hoshiarpur did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the dispute as the cheque was issued at Surat and was dishonoured at Surat. Secondly, no offence u/s. 138 of the Act is made out for the simple reason that the cheque was returned unpaid for the reason sign jointly. In fact the cheque was to be signed by two persons whereas, it was signed by only one, therefore, no complaint u/s. 138 of the Act was maintainable. Thirdly, the contention is that the cheque having been dishonoured vide memo dated 17.04.1999 initially, the cause of action arose to respondent No.2 complainant at that time to file complaint and not when the cheque was not cleared ott second presentation. Reliance has been placed upon judgments of Hon ble the Supreme Court in Vinod Tanna and another V/s. Zaheer Siddiqui and others, 2002 7 SCC 541 and Sadanandan Bhadran V/s. Madhavan Sunil Kumar, 1998 6 SCC 514.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 complainant, submitted that the filing of present petition before this Court is an abuse of process of law. No ground for quashing of the complaint is made out as all the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners praying for quashing of the complaint are totally meritless. In fact the cheque on both the occasions had been returned primarily on account of the fact that there was no balance in the account of the petitioners. The Court at Hoshiarpur has the jurisdiction to try the complaint as part of the cause of action had arisen within its jurisdiction. Respondent No.2 complainant having not issued any notice at the time when the cheque was returned uncleared first time, certainly had the right to present the same again during the period of its validity and issue a notice before filing of complaint as the cause of action to file complaint arises not merely on return of the cheque un-cleared but if the amount is not paid in spite of issue of notice. In this