Closure of an account before a cheque is presented for payment constitutes causing insufficiency of money standing to the credit of the account, and thus falls within the ambit of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

, J.

1. This is a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Pro cedure, for quashing the complaint, dated February 24, 1993, annexed as Annexure p.1 with the petition filed by the respondent No.1 - Prem Nath Sharma, in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amritsar, and for setting aside of entire subsequent proceedings in the trial Court including the summoning order, dated April 2, 1993 and notice, dated December 6, 1993, Annexures P.2 and P.3 respectively attached with the petition, being an abuse of the process of the Court.

2. Briefly stated, the facts are that Jatinder Poddar petitioner issued a Cheque (No.0197663, dated January 10, 1993) in favour of the complainant (respondent No. l-Prem Nath Sharma in this petition) for Rs.75,395.25 drawn on Union Bank of India, chowk Phawara, Amritsar and the cheque was for consideration. Complainant - Prem nath Sharma presented the said Cheque drawn on the Union Bank of India, Chowk phawara, Amritsar issued by the accused petitioner, through the Jammu and Kashmir bank Ltd. , Shastri Market, Amritsar, who after presentation of the same sent a Memo of dishonour to the complainant, dated January 12, 1993, issued by the Union Bank of India, Chowk Phawara, Amritsar, which showed that the accused had closed the account either on January 11, 1993 or on January 12, 1993. The Memo of dishonour issued by the Union Bank of India, Amritsar revealed that the payment was not made as the account was closed.

3. Complainant-prem Nath Sharma sent a notice to the accused-petitioner through his lawyer in accordance with the Negotiable Instruments Act, calling upon him that since the cheque issued by him stood dishonoured on presentation through the Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. , Shastri Market, Amritsar, he should arrange to make the payment of the aforesaid Cheque within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice. The accused petitioner was informed through the said notice that he had committed an offence under Negotiable Instruments Act and he was liable to be imprisoned for a term which may extend to one year or fine which may extend to twice for the amount of the Cheque or both, as provided under the law. The aforesaid Cheque was presented within six months from the date on which it was drawn.

4. After completing all the formalities of sending notice etc. to the accused under the act, the accused-petitioner did not make any payment and ultimately a complaint under section 138 read with sections 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, was filed against the accused-petitioner.

5. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amritsar, after going into the statements of the witnesses and other relevant evidence, found a prima facie case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and summoned the accused-petitioner jatinder Poddar and started further proceedings.

6. Accused-petitioner Jatinder Poddar filed this petition, as stated above, for quashing the complaint as well as the summoning order and further proceedings. This has come up for hearing before me today.

7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner for quashing the complaint and the consequent proceedings before the Magistrate is that no case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act or any other provision of the Indian penal Code, is made out against the accused- petitioner, as the Cheque was dishonoured on account of the closure of the Account of the accused-petitioner when the cheque was presented. The quashment of the complaint as also consequent proceedings thereto, thus, sought is on the ground that there was no Account of the petitioner with the Bank when the Cheque was presented. To take support for this argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited S. Prasanna V/s. R. Vljayalakshml, 1992 isj (Banking) 436 : [vol.1 DCTC 217]. (a judgment of the Madras High Court ).

8. On the other hand, the learned co