JUDGMENT :

Manju Rani Chauhan, J.

1. Heard Mr. C.L. Pandey, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Durlabh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned AGA for the State and perused the records.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 31.03.2021 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.5442 of 2020 (Sanjit Mishra Vs. M/s Shriram Balaji Traders), under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, pending in the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/ Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the opposite party no.2 filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the applicant with the allegation that the applicant having good relations with opposite party no.2, borrowed an amount of Rs. 4 lacs from the opposite party no.2 and to discharge his liability gave a cheque bearing No.264555 of State Bank of India, Branch Mandi Samiti, Jhansi of his firm M/s Shriram Balaji Traders having its account No.MCA 32292826933 dated 28.02.2020. The aforesaid cheque was presented before the District Cooperative Bank, Branch Manikchowk, Jhansi for encashment, however, the same was returned on 04.03.2020 without payment with a remark "other reasons". Thereafter, the opposite party no. 2 approached the applicant informing about the return of the check without payment and requested him to pay the amount as taken by him, on which, assurance was given by the applicant that he would contact the bank, after which, the opposite party no.2 may present the cheque for encashment. On the aforesaid verbal assurance, the cheque was presented for the second time on 07.02.2020 before the District Cooperative Bank, Branck Manikchowk, Jhansi for encashment, however, the same was returned on 09.03.2020 without payment. Thereafter, on 18.03.2020, a legal notice was sent to the applicant through advocate by registered post. Thereafter, as there was lockdown from 24.03.2020, therefore, the opposite party no.2 could not receive the information of postal details. After the lockdown was over, on 29.05.2020, the opposite party no.2 sent a letter to the senior postal superintendent, Jhansi enquiring about the service of notice and he was informed that the aforesaid notice has been served at the address mentioned on 19.03.2020. Thereafter, after the notice neither any amount was paid nor reply was submitted by the applicant, therefore, the present compliant has been filed on 18.06.2020. Subsequently, the learned Magistrate after recording the statement under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. summoned the applicant vide order dated 31.03.2021, under Section 138 of the Act.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant no.2 had good relations with the opposite party no.2 and the opposite party no.2 was interested to purchase a portion of residential house of the mother of applicant no.2. In this regard, a registered agreement for sale was entered between the opposite party no.2 and mother of applicant no.2 on 08.10.2013. A sale deed was to be executed by the mother of applicant no.2 in favour of opposite party no.2 within a period of two years after payment of the consideration as agreed. As only Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid and rest of the amount could not be paid, therefore, by mutual understanding between the parties another registered agreement was executed between them on 07.10.2015. The opposite party no.2 did not pay the amount as agreed within the stipulated period, therefore, the present case has been instituted with mala fide intentions, in order to extract money from the opposite party no.2.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that as the opposite party no.2 used to come at the applicants' place, a signed cheque was stolen from his drawer and the same has been used for filing the present case under Section 138 of N.I. Act, the