JUDGMENT

Mr. Jasjit Singh Bedi, J. (Oral)

The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of the complaint bearing No.NIACT/944/2019 titled as 'Joginder Singh v. Rachpal Singh and others' under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (Annexure P-3), the summoning order dated 13.03.2020 (Annexure P-2) under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the order dated 29.11.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed in the revision petition and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1/complainant Joginder Singh filed a criminal complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against Mr. Rachpal Singh son of Mehngu, Mrs. Rachna (petitioner), wife of Rachpal Singh and M/s Rachna Trading Company through Rachpal Singh. As per the allegations in the complaint, the accused were running a trading company under the name and style of M/s Rachna Trading Company and were acquainted with the complainant-party. The accused had taken a loan of Rs.10 lacs from the complainant-party. Mr. Rachpal Singh had furnished an affidavit dated 11.07.2019 admitting the receipt of Rs.6 lacs from Jasvir Singh son of the complainant and also making a mention of his having issued two cheques bearing No.001226 and 001227 for Rs.3 lacs each dated 15.03.2019 and 15.10.2019. The said affidavit was attested by the present petitioner as well. Thereafter, Mr. Rachpal Singh as a proprietor of M/s Rachna Trading Company issued the cheque in question bearing No.001239 dated 10.09.2019 for a sum of Rs.1 lac to the complainant party, which on presentation came to be dishonoured, leading to the filing of the complaint. A copy of the complaint dated 04.12.2019 is attached as Annexure P-3 to the present petition.

3. Based on the preliminary evidence led, the accused came to be summoned by the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathankot to face the Trial vide order dated 13.03.2020 (Annexure P-2).

4. The petitioner preferred a revision petition bearing CNR No.PBPO01 001272 2020 CRM/10/2021 against the order of summoning dated 13.03.2020. The said revision petition came to be dismissed vide order dated 29.11.2021 (Annexure P-1).

The aforementioned complaint (Annexure P-3), summoning order (Annexure P-2) and the order in revision (Annexure P-1) are impugned in the present petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is neither a signatory of the cheque in question nor holding a joint account with her husband-Rachpal Singh. She is also not a partner in the sole proprietorship concern of her husband. The complaint and the summoning order do not establish her liability in any manner whatsoever. Reliance is placed on a copy of the Registration Certificate of the Firm (Annexure P-6) which would show Rachpal Singh is the proprietor of the said proprietorship concern. He also contends that no amount had ever been received in the bank account of the petitioner as was borne out from her account statement (Annexure P-7). In fact, her husband had disappeared since 13.09.2019 and has not been located till date. Since no offence whatsoever was established against the petitioner, the proceedings emanating out of the instant complaint ought to be quashed qua her.

6. Despite service, none has appeared on behalf of the respondent No.1/complainant.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2/State has filed a status report dated 27.04.2022 by way of an affidavit of Mangal Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Dharkalan, District Pathankot. As per the said status report, the petitioner is stated to be liable on account of the averments made in the complaint as also the f