JUDGMENT :

Gurvinder Singh Gill, J.

The petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of complaint case No.8 dated 12.1.2002 and also summoning order dated 14.2.2002 in respect of which the petitioners have been facing trial for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2. A few facts necessary to notice for disposal of this petition are that respondent-complainant/Rajiv Kumar Gupta instituted a complaint dated 11.01.2002 (Annexure P-1) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner and his wife Mrs. Chinta Singh alleging therein that the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.3.5 Lakhs and had issued a cheque dated 28.9.2001 for an amount of Rs.3.50 Lakhs in discharge of the said liability but upon presentation of the same, the same was dishonoured leading to filing of the complaint by the respondent/complainant.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing the complaint has submitted that the complaint has been filed on the basis of false allegations and that infact the respondent had laid his hands on a blank cheque signed by the petitioner as security in respect of a loan advanced by partner of respondent to the petitioners and had misused the same by filling up particulars and by presenting the same for encashment. It has further been submitted that although the complaint purports to have been filed through one Subhash Chander, attorney of the complainant, but it had later on transpired that no such person by the said name exists and that in fact Deep Kumar Gupta, father of the complainant, had been appearing in the Court by impersonating as said Subhash Chander. The learned counsel in this context cites a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as A.C. Narayanan vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (2015) 1 RCR(Cri) 823.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also assailed the summoning order dated 12.1.2002 (Annexure P-2) while contending that infact as per the summoning order, it was only petitioner No.1- accused No.1 - Jai Parkash who had been summoned and that petitioner No.2 had never been summoned and that in these circumstances the entire proceedings are liable to be quashed.

5. I have considered the aforesaid submissions. Before proceeding to consider the aforesaid submissions, a few facts pertaining to stage of the case also need to be borne in mind. Some of the relevant dates may be stated in chronological order in the following manner :-

6. From the aforesaid position, it is borne out that the trial of the case has been pending since the last more than 17 years. While the complainant had closed his evidence in 2003, the matter has remained pending thereafter for recording defence evidence. During the interregnum, the petitioner had also approached this Court by way of filing some petitions which stands decided. One such petition i.e. CRM-M No.5866 of 2