JUDGMENT :

MANISHA BATRA, J. 

1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of complaint bearing NACT No. 66 of 2019 titled as Sudesh Kumar v. Ayush Kumar Garg, filed under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘NI Act’) which is pending before the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hansi along with all the subsequent proceedings having emanated therefrom including the order dated 13.05.2019, whereby the present petitioner had been ordered to be summoned as an accused and had been called upon to appear and to face trial for commission of aforementioned offence.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of present petition are that the aforementioned complaint has been filed by the respondent under Section 138 of the N. I. Act against the petitioner/accused on the allegations that the petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs from him in three installments and had promised to pay the same back within a short time. When the respondent insisted him for repayment of his money, the petitioner had issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. 5 Lakhs to him. This cheque was, however, dishonoured on presentation with the remarks ‘funds insufficient’. Despite, legal notice being served, the petitioner did not pay the amount of cheque in question to the respondent, thereby compelling the respondent to file the aforementioned complaint.

3. On presentation of the complaint and after recording of preliminary evidence produced by the respondent, the learned trial Magistrate, vide order dated 13.05.2019, summoned the petitioner to face trial for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the N. I. Act. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the complaint as well as the summoning order by filing the present petition.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned complaint as well as the summoning order are not sustainable in the eyes of law and are liable to be set aside as while passing the impugned summoning order, the learned trial Court ignored the fact that the cheque in question was not issued by the petitioner in his personal capacity. Rather, the same was issued by M/s Keshav Oil and Cotton Ginn Ind. Pvt. Ltd. (for short ‘company’) and not only the petitioner but another Director of the company, namely Parmod Kumar, was also the signatory to the same. However, neither the company nor the said Parmod Kumar has been implicated as party to the complaint. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner in his personal capacity had secured any loan from the respondent. With these broad submissions, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned complaint as well as the summoning order are liable to be set aside.

5. The respondent had been duly served but failed to appear and contest the petition.

6. This Court has heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. At the outset, it is to be considered as to whether, the prayer made by the petitioner for quashing of complaint can be considered by this Court in a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (which is pari materia with Section 528 of BNSS, 2023). The Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down certain conditions whereby the complaint can be quashed by invoking the powers under the above mentioned Section in a case reported as Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalzi and others (1976) 3 SCC 736 which are as follows:-

(1) Where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same, taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused;

(2) where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding