Mrs. Daya Chaudhary, J.: - By this judgment, three petitions bearing Crl. Misc. Nos. M- 37492, 38472 and 37522 of 2012 shall stand disposed of as common question of law and facts are involved in all the three cases. However, for the sake of convenience, the facts are being extracted from Crl. Misc. No. M-37492 of 2012.

2. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of complaint No. 14727 of 2012 dated 20.7.2012 as well as summoning order dated 8.8.2012 passed by JMIC, Ludhiana and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the petition are that the petitioner took a loan of Rs. 15 lacs from respondent No.1-company in three instalments and he, thereafter, issued three post dated cheques dated 29.5.2012 of Rs. 5 lac each, towards repayment of the loan by mentioning ‘yourself’. As per case of the petitioner, a Real Time Gross Settlement Fund Application Form (RTGS) was filled by him along with each cheque. On presentation of cheques along with RTGS forms for transfer of Rs. 15 lacs from the petitioner’s account to the account of respondent No.1, the same were returned with the remarks ‘funds insufficient’. A legal notice was served upon the petitioner on 14.6.2012 by respondent No.1 calling upon him to make payment of Rs. 15 lacs within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice but the petitioner failed to do so. After expiry of aforesaid period of 15 days, respondent No.1 filed three complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) before JMIC, Ludhiana on 20.7.2012 and the petitioner was summoned to face trial vide order dated 8.8.2012.

4. The said complaints as well as summoning orders are subject matter of challenge in the present three petitions filed by petitioner-Nitin Chadha.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that cheques were drawn by mentioning ‘Yourself’ which means ‘drawn in favour of the Bank’ and no offence is made out under Section 138 of the Act. Learned counsel further contends that the cheque drawn as ‘Yourself’ was not in favour of anybody and it was not to be encashed by the complainant-respondent No.1. As per clause (b) to the proviso of Section 138 of the Act, the demand for payment or dishonour of the cheque was to be made either by the payee or by the ‘holder in due course’ of the cheque but it does not include ‘holder’ as has been defined under Section 8 of the Act. Learned counsel also contends that the complainant was neither the ‘payee’ nor the ‘holder’ in due course of the cheques in dispute and the same were not issued in favour of the complainant. It is also the argument of learned counsel that the complainant has not given any details of advancement of loan and it cannot be said the cheques in dispute were issued in discharge of any liability. Learned counsel has also relied upon Division Bench judgment of this Court in Punjab National Bank Vs. Himgiri Traders and another 2003 (4) RCR (Criminal) 876, Single Bench judgment of this Court in V.K. Gupta Vs. Manjit Kaur 2008 (3) RCR (Criminal) 430, of Madras High Court in Poppys Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. C. Visalakshi and another 2006 (1) DCR 16 and of Gauhati High Court in Dr. Jiten Barkakoti Vs. Subrata Patangia and another 2006 (1) DCR 278, in support of his contentions.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the petitioner has not denied the fact regarding issuance of three cheques of Rs. 15 lacs along with RTGS forms duly filled in by him. The petitioner has deliberately concealed the fact that he has issued RTGS forms for transfer of money to the account of respondent No.1. The cheques were drawn in favour of ‘Yourself’ means that the cheques were drawn in favour of the Bank with the instruction given in RTGS forms for transfer of money directly to the account of respondent No.1. Learned counsel further contends that when the cheques in favour of ‘Yourself’ were accompanie