(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:13) (cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:11)(cid:17)(cid:14)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:11)(cid:1)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:2)(cid:16)(cid:11)(cid:20)(cid:22)(cid:11)(cid:23)(cid:21)(cid:15)(cid:24)ti(cid:26)(cid:11)ti(cid:15)(cid:27)(cid:11)(cid:17)ti(cid:2)(cid:28)ti(cid:15)ti(cid:11)

ti(cid:16)(cid:11)(cid:1)(cid:17)ti(cid:15)(cid:27)(cid:14)(cid:19)ti(cid:2)(cid:17)

Decided on: 09.01.2025 Surender ..... Petitioner Versus Rakesh ......Respondent (cid:1)(cid:20)(cid:2)ti(cid:3)(cid:29) (cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:15)(cid:30)(cid:26)(cid:31)(cid:18)(cid:11)(cid:3)(cid:2) (cid:11)(cid:24)(cid:21)!(cid:16)(cid:14)(cid:1)(cid:18)(cid:11)(cid:2)ti(cid:24)(cid:18)!(cid:17)(cid:11)(cid:26)(cid:17)ti(cid:2)(cid:27)"ti(cid:24)

Present: Mr.Chirag Wadhwa, Advocate, for the petitioner.

(cid:2)#$%&’(cid:11)(cid:26)’#()*#$+(cid:11)(cid:24)

1. Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of Criminal Complaint bearing Complaint case No.NACT 3189/2020 dated 02.11.2020 titled as Rakesh vs. Surender, pending in the Court of learned JMIC Karnal, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the Act’), alongwith all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including the summoning order dated 01.04.2022.

2. Succinctly, facts of the case are that respondent(cid:1)complainant instituted the impugned complaint under Sections 138, 142 and 143 of the Act against the petitioner. It has been alleged in the complaint that the petitioner entered into an agreement to sell with the respondent for an amount of Rs.10 lacs. The petitioner received an amount of Rs.3,99,000/(cid:1) as earnest money from the respondent. It was alleged that due to some reason, the said deal could not be finalized between the petitioner and the respondent and the agreement was cancelled. The petitioner in discharge of his legal liability towards the respondent, issued a cheque bearing No.000597 dated 30.07.2020 for an amount of Rs.3,99,000/(cid:1) drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, from his bank account. On the presentation of the said cheque, it was returned back vide memo dated 10.09.2020 with remarks ‘Payment stopped by drawer’ and thus, the cheque issued by the petitioner was dishonoured. Legal notice dated 05.10.2020 was served by the respondent. It was alleged that the said notice was duly served upon the petitioner but despite that he did not make the payment of the cheque amount. Hence, the said complaint was filed for the prosecution of the petitioner. Subsequent to the filing of the complaint, learned trial Court having found a (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:3)(cid:9) case against the petitioner, summoned him vide impugned order dated 01.04.2022. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely and frivolously prosecuted in the impugned complaint. He submits that the respondent has relied upon the agreement to sell dated 27.04.2018 allegedly executed by the petitioner. However, perusal of the agreement would show that the same is executed by one Salinder son of Dawa Singh. He, thus, submits that petitioner has not entered into the agreement to sell as alleged in the complaint. He submits that legal notice instead of having been issued to Salinder, has been served upon Surender son of Hawa Singh, thus, the identities are different. He has submitted that in the facts and circumstances, there is no legal liability to be discharged by the petitioner towards the respondent. He submits that by reading the statutory provisions of Section 138 and 142 of the Act, prosecution of the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court, however, learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the same and thus, has illegally passed the impugned summoning order dated 01.04.2022.

It is submitted that the impugned complaint and summoning order being