Point of Law:
No leg to stand other plea taken on behalf of applicant that signature appended on cheque is not of applicant same is forged also no leg to stand on ground that on presentation of same.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan and Mr. Prashant Kumar, learned A.G.As. for the State.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. agree that the present application may be disposed of at this stage without calling for further affidavits in view of the order proposed to be passed today.

3. By means of this 482 Cr.P.C. application, the applicant has questioned summoning order dated 7th May, 2019 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun in Complaint Case No.1277 of 2019 (Sm. Kamla Devi Vs. Ranjit), under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the “N.I. Act”), Police Station-Kotwali Orai, District-Jalaun, whereby the applicant has been summoned. The applicant also seeks for quashing of the order dated 24th October, 2019 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jalaun in Criminal Revision No. 66 of 2019, whereby the revision filed by the applicant against the summoning order dated 7th May, 2019, has been dismissed.

4. The facts, as borne out from the records of the present application, are as follows:

The complainant/opposite party no.2 and applicant are relatives, as the applicant is son-in-law of brother of the complainant/opposite party no.2. In month of April, 2016, being the relative of the complainant, the applicant had taken a loan of Rs. 1,90,000/- from the complainant for purchasing of tractor and installation of tube-well on his field, on the assurance that he would repay the same within a year. After expiry of the aforesaid period, when the complainant requested the applicant to return the aforesaid money, he deferred the same. When the complainant exerted pressure upon the applicant to repay the same, he had given a cheque no. 806369 of Vijaya Bank for a sum of Rs. 1,90,000/- to the complainant on 15th January, 2019. On the same day, the complainant has presented the same before the Central Bank of India, where her saving bank account is maintained, for encashment, but the same has been returned to the complainant on 19th January, along with return memo that there was no sufficient balance in the account of the applicant. Thereafter since the applicant was the relative, opposite party no.2/complainant did not want to take any legal action against him, hence she made all efforts to reconcile the matter but all went in vain. Thereafter the complainant/opposite party no.2 sent a legal notice to the applicant through her advocate on 6th February, 2019 within 15 days of the receipt of return memo, which has been served upon him on 9th February, 2019. The applicant instead of repaying the loan amount of complainant, has sent a reply to the legal notice sent by opposite party no.2 on 5th March, 2019. Hence, the present complaint has been filed by the complainant/opposite party no.2. After registration of the said complaint case, impugned summoning order has been passed against the applicant.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is self-employed and driving E-Rikshaw for his livelihood in New Delhi and its surrounding area for the last five years. Opposite party no.2/complainant is sister of father-in-law of the brother of the applicant, namely, Dharmendra. The allegations made in the complaint case that the applicant has taken loan of Rs. 1,90,000/- from the complainant for purchasing tractor and installation of tube3 well on his field, is absolutely false and fictitious as in the year 2016, the applicant was living in New Delhi, where he was driving ERickshaw for his livelihood. It is further submitted that the applicant had never given any cheque of Rs. 1,90,000/- to the complainant/opposite party no.2 for repayment of loan taken by him. He was unaware of any conspiracy which was being hatched by opposite party no.2 or her sons. After receiving legal notice dated 6th February, 2019 sent by the Advocate of complainant about the loan taken, dishonour of cheque and demand of paymen