Dishonour of Cheque--Quashing--Complainant as no right to enforce the liability of third parties

Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J.: - The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the complaint No.879/2 dated 9.9.2009, entitled “Shiv Kumar Grover v. Smt. Sheetal Gaurav P. Jain and another”, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) and the summoning order dated 9.9.2009 (Annexure P-2) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Brief facts as mentioned in the complaint are to the effect that the petitioners/accused approached the complainant-respondent in the month of March 2009 for purchasing copper scrap. The complainant is doing the business of trading/agent of ferrous and non-ferrous scrap and supplying to different persons in India whereas the accused are alleged to be also doing the business of purchasing and selling scrap. It is also mentioned that the complainant-respondent is doing the work of trading/agent only. It is mentioned in the complaint that the complainant-respondent is also an agent of AIP Industries, Office No.2, 5th Floor, Carnival Complex, Mall Road, Ludhiana. The said company is also doing the business of trading of ferrous and non ferrous metals. On 2.3.2009, the complainant sold scrap through invoice No.213 dated 2.3.2009 and Invoice No.214 dated 3.3.2009 for a sum of Rs.65,70,500/- to both the petitionees. Allegedly, the delivery was taken by the petitioners from the Focal Point, Ludhiana. As such, legally enforceable liability arose and they are legally bound to discharge the liability. In discharge of the said liability, petitioner No.1 – Shital Gaurav P. Jain issued a cheque No.122158 dated 9.3.2009 for a sum of Rs.65,70,500/- drawn on the UTI Bank (now known as Axis Bank). It is alleged that a request was made by petitioner No.1 that the cheque should be deposited in the month of August 2009 so that the same could be encashed. When the respondent-complainant presented the cheque on 13.8.2009 to his banker Punjab National Bank, Ludhiana, it was returned back on 17.8.2009 with the memo bearing remarks “funds insufficient”. The complainant issued a legal notice dated 22.8.2009 under UPC and two registered posts of the same date through his counsel. The said notice was duly served upon the petitioners-accused but in spite of that, no payment was made. Thereafter, complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 420 IPC has been filed. The learned Magistrate, after taking into consideration the affidavit of the complainant, on the same day, summoned the petitioners vide order dated 9.9.2009. Hence, this petition.

3. The petitioners have sought quashing of the complaint and the summoning order and subsequent proceedings on the ground that it has been filed with mala fide intention and ulterior motive to harass the petitioners. In fact, petitioner No.2 was married to Gaurav P. Jain on 27.9.2006. However, the matrimonial discord occurred between the parties on account of alleged maltreatment etc. as a result of which FIR No.15 of 2009 was registered at Police Station ‘A’ Division, Bhavnagar for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 498-A and 114 IPC. Another complaint was filed by petitioner No.2 under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. It is alleged in the petition that as a counter-blast to the above complaints, the instant complaint has been filed as the complainant is a close friend of the husband of petitioner No.2 and no transaction as alleged in the complaint had ever taken place between the parties. It is alleged that the complaint is a sheer misuse of process of law. The matrimonial dispute between petitioner No.2 and her husband was solved with the intervention of respectables. Resultantly, a compromise dated 24.9.2009 Annexure P-3 between the petitioners and husband of petitioner No.2 and others has been effected. In the compromise Annexure P-3, it has been acknowledged that blank cheques of the parties are lying with each other. It is also one of the terms