JUDGMENT :

MANISHA BATRA, J.

1. The petitioner is seeking quashing of order dated 30.10.2024 (Annexure P-22), passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nabha in Criminal Complaint bearing No. COMA/166/2018, tiled as Dr. Mulkh Raj vs. Harjeet Singh and others, filed under Sections 138, 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘N. I. Act’), whereby an application moved by the petitioner seeking her discharge, had been dismissed.

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned complaint has been filed by respondent No. 1/complainant against the petitioner, her husband Harjeet Singh and M/s Guru Ram Dass Agro Industries & Implements (for short ‘firm’) on the allegations that the petitioner and her husband, who were partners in the firm, had insisted him to provide financial help. Respondent No.1 had given a cheque for a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs to them in December, 2013 and cash amount of Rs.3 Lakhs in March, 2014. They had subsequently induced him to get collateral guarantee given by one farmer to them to the tune of Rs.14.50 Lakhs on the representation that on release of such guarantee, the farmer would return the aforementioned amount to them and he would return the amount of Rs. 8 Lakhs payable by him to respondent No. 1. They also issued 8 cheques to the tune of Rs. 8 Lakhs in favour of respondent No. 1. Those cheques were presented on 28.12.2017 for realization but had been dishonoured. The petitioner and other accused failed to pay the amount of cheques in question even after issuance of legal notice, thereby compelling respondent No. 1 to file the complaint.

3. After presentation of the complaint, preliminary evidence was recorded by the jurisdictional Magistrate and vide order dated 01.03.2018, the petitioner along with co-accused i.e. respondents No. 2 and 3 was ordered to be summoned as accused to face trial for commission of aforementioned offence.

4. As reflected from the material placed on record, the petitioner and co-accused had caused appearance before the learned trial Court. Notice of accusation was served upon him on 21.05.2018. Thereafter, cross- examination of respondent No. 1/complainant had been conducted. The petitioner and co-accused subsequently moved an application seeking their discharge. The said application has been dismissed by the learned trial Court, vide impugned order dated 30.10.2024 by observing that the Court had no power to discharge the accused since notice of accusation had been served and trial had also commenced. Feeling aggrieved from the same, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

5. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No. 1 had willingly and voluntarily become guarantor for her firm on 22.05.2014 and had executed documents in this regard, since he wanted to have control over the firm of the petitioner. Another guarantee deed had been executed by him on 03.03.2016 for a sum of Rs. 70 Lakhs. The petitioner had retired from the partnership of the firm at the insistence of respondent No. 1 on 04.02.2016 and was no more a partner at the time of dishonour of the cheques in question as well as filing of the complaint.

6. It is further argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that it was respondent No. 1, who was greedy and had compelled her husband Harjeet Singh for inducting partners of his choice in the firm. The impugned order dated 30.10.2024 is not at all sustainable in the eyes of law as while passing the same, the learned trial Court ignored the fact that respondent No. had willingly and voluntarily executed guarantee deeds in favour of the firm of the petitioner. It was on his insistence that the petitioner had retired from the partnership of the firm and on 04.02.2016, a dummy partner, namely Gurmit Singh, had been inducted. The cheques in question had not been signed by the petitioner. As on the date of issuance and dishonour of the cheques in dispute as well a