JUDGMENT : 

MANISHA BATRA, J.

1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of Criminal Complaint bearing No. COMA/166/2018 (Annexure P-1), 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’) as well as for quashing of order dated 01.03.2018 (Annexure P-2) whereby the petitioners had been summoned to face trial for commission of aforementioned offences.

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 petitioners and their firm M/s Guru Ram Dass Agro Industries & Implements (for short ‘firm’) on the allegations that the petitioners, who were partners in the said 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 they would return the amount of Rs. 8 Lakhs payable by them to respondent No.1. In order to discharge their liability, the petitioners issued 08 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 impugned complaint.

3. On considering the preliminary evidence produced by the respondent No.1/complainant, the learned trial Magistrate, vide impugned order dated 01.03.2018, summoned the petitioners to face trial for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the N. I. Act. The petitioners have 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 petitioners that the impugned complaint as well as the summoning order are liable to be set aside as while passing the impugned order, the learned Magistrate ignored the fact that there was no material to show that they had obtained any loan from the respondent/complainant. Respondent No. 1 had willingly and voluntarily become guarantor for their firm on 22.05.2014 and had executed documents in this regard, since he wanted to have control over the firm of the petitioners. Another guarantee deed had been executed by him on 03.03.2016 for a sum of Rs. 70 Lakhs. The petitioners had retired from the partnership of the firm at the insistence of respondent No. 1 on 12.05.2016 and 04.02.2016, respectively and were no more partners at the time of dishonour of the cheques in question as well as filing of the complaint. It is further argued that respondent No. 1, was greedy and had compelled petitioner No. 1 for inducting partners of his choice in the firm. Some partners were inducted subsequently. As on the date of issuance and dishonour of the cheques in dispute as well as on the date of filing of the complaint, the petitioners were not the partners in the firm and as such, they could not be implicated as accused and subjected to trial. The fact that petitioner No. 2 had retired from the partnership of the firm on 04.02.2016 had even been admitted by respondent No. 1 in his cross-examination. In view of these facts, no prosecution can be launched against the petitioners. 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. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents.

6. This Court has heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, besides going through the material placed o