Hon’ble Vinod Prasad, J.—In these two connected Applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C., being Application Nos. 6803 of 2003 and 7318 of 2003, two relative applicants Ganesh Singh and his sister-in law Smt. Manju Singh have have prayed for quashing of prosecution of complaint case No. 2535 of 2002, Meera Devi v. Ganesh Singh and others, under Section 138 N.I. Act pending before 1st Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur. Since the facts and prayer in both the applications are common and it both emanates from the same complaint case, hence by this common judgment they are being decided.

Sri T.B. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri V.K. Tiwari, learned counsel holding brief of Sri P.N. Tiwari for the complainant respondent No. 4 and learned AGA for the State have been heard in extenso and record of both the Applications have been scrutinized carefully.

A priory, preceding facts generating these Applications revealed that a complaint was filed by complainant Smt. Meera Devi/respondent No. 4, before 3rd A.C.J.M., Jaunpur with the allegations that she and her husband, Nanhey Seth, were engaged in a cement business in Jaunpur city. Both the applicants Ganesh Singh and Smt. Manju Singh are members of HUF and are original residents of village Kapoorpur, P.S. Buxa, district Jaunpur, but in connections with their business, they reside at Teji Bazar, Buxa, district Jaunpur. Having close business relations between them Ganesh Singh, used to purchase cements from the complainant regularly on credit and reimburse the sale prices subsequently. In these business transactions, it is alleged that applicant Ganesh Singh had purchased on credit cements from the complainant but out of total sale price, Rs. 22000/= remained balanced and when the complainant demanded payment he (Ganesh Singh applicant) asked his sister-in-law (bhabhi) applicant Smt. Manju Singh to make the payment, which was made through cheque No. 687510 of PNB Bank. Admitted case of the complainant, which is a significant fact, is that albeit cheque was filled by applicant Ganesh Singh but the drawer of the said cheque is Smt. Manju Singh as it was she who had signed the aforesaid cheque issued in the name of Nanhey Seth. It is further alleged that complainant deposited the said cheque in her PNB bank, Kesari Bazar branch, but the cheque was dishonored and received back to the complainant on 8.2.2002 with bank endorsement of insufficient funds in the drawer’s account. Statutory notice as is contemplated under Section 138 N.I. Act (herein after referred to as the Act) was given to applicant Ganesh Singh only but inspite of service of notice no payment was reimbursed and hence complaint under Section 138 of the Act as well as under Section 420 I.P.C. was filed before the Magistrate to punish both the applicants for the aforesaid offences.

2. Observing complainant case procedure statements under Section 200 of the code of the complainant and 202 Cr.P.C. of her husband Nanhey Seth were recorded and learned trial Magistrate, vide summoning order dated 14.8.2002, summoned both the applicants to stand trial only under Section 138 of the Act. The natural corollary that follows is that the complaint was dismissed for offence under Section 420 of the Penal Code. No challenge to said rejection of complaint concerning offence under the Penal Code has been made by the complainant and hence that has attained finality and the matter stands concluded by the aforesaid summoning order dated 14.8.2002.

3. In the aforesaid background that both the applicants have approached this Court through above 482 Cr.P.C. Applications with the prayer to quash their prosecution as aforesaid.

Ganesh Singh applicant, based his prayer for quashing on the reason that he is not the drawer of the cheque and also that the complaint is premature. Another applicant Smt. Manju Singh has prayed for quashing of the complaint on the reasons that the complaint is premature and no statutory demand notice under Section