The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of acknowledgment of debt within the limitation period and the legal enforceability of the debt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

JUDGMENT

Harnaresh Singh Gill, J. - By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the complaint bearing COMA No.753 dated 14.01.2019 (Annexure P.I) and summoning order dated 27.02.2019 (Annexure P.2) passed therein by the learned trial Magistrate.

2. The complainant-respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act') with the averments that accused-M/s Chadha Motors through its Partner Sumesh Chadha (present petitioner) took from him a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- vide cheque No.365512 dated 22.9.2011 (sic 22.11.2012) for a period of seven years; that the said cheque was duly encashed on 24.09.2011; that the accused in order to discharge their liability issued a cheque bearing No. 207372 dated 01.11.2018 for Rs.5,00,000/- drawn on ICICI Bank, Ludhiana; however, when the cheque was presented for encashment, the same got dishonoured with the remarks' insufficient funds' and that thereafter the accused were served with the legal notice, but to no avail.

3. In the said complaint, the learned trial Magistrate passed an order on 27.02.2019, thereby summoning accused No.l and 2 (i.e. the petitioner and his partnership firm) to face the trial.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant is in respect of the alleged liability that had occurred in the year 2011. It is further submitted that the averments made in the complaint that the said loan had been taken by the petitioner for a period of seven years, are nothing, but to make out a case so as to bring the case within the period of limitation. While relying upon the judgment of this Court in Maniit Kaur Vs. Vanita, 2010(3) RCR (Criminal) 574 , Madras High Court in K. Kumaravel Vs. R.P. Rathinam, 2011(3) RCR (Crl.) 574 and Bombay High Court in Ashwni Satish Bhat (Mrs.) Vs. Jeevan Divakar Lolienkar, 2000(1) RCR (Crl.) 829 , it is contended that the limitation for recovery of the alleged date was three years from the date of issue thereof. It is further contended that at no point of time before the expiry of the said period of limitation, had there been any acknowledgement by or on behalf of the petitioner. Thus, the very complaint filed by the complainant was not maintainable.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the case file, I find that the present petition merits acceptance.

6. Before proceedings further, it would be just and appropriate to reproduce para No. 3 of the complaint (Annexure P.I) as under:-

"3. That accused No.l through accused Nos. 2 to 4 took loan of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs) from the complainant through cheque No. 465512 dated 22.11.2012 on interest for the period of about seven years and the said cheque was duly encashed in the account of accused on 24.09.2011. The accused No. 1 promised to return the said loan and now in order to return the loan amount, the accused No.2 with the active consent of accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 and for and on behalf of accused No.l, in order to return the loan amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and in order to discharge their existing enforceable legal liability towards the complainant has issued cheque bearing No. 207372 dated 01.11.2018 for Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lacs) drawn on ICICI Bank, Ludhiana and fully assured that it will be duly encashed on its presentation with the bank and on this assurance only, the complainant has received and accepted the cheque."

7. There is no averment in the entire complaint as regards any kind of acknowledgment of the said debt by the petitioner within the period of three years i.e. the limitation period to recover the debt. Thus, there being no acknowledgement by or on behalf of the accused, it cannot be said that the complaint filed in respect of the said debt was maintainable.

8. Similar issue was considered by this Court in Manjit Kaur's case (supra). In the said case, a cheque issued in the year 2003 in respect of the loan advan