Hardayal Singh Khimta vs Jasmer Pack and Another

Surjit Singh, J.—Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 3.7.2008 of learned Judicial Magistrate, Nahan, whereby he alongwith respondent No. 2 Lekh Raj has been summoned as an accused in a complaint, u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. It is submitted in the petition that the present petitioner had nothing to do with the issuance of cheque or its dishonour nor did he owe any liability to the complainant, impleaded as respondent No.1 herein and, hence, he could not be said to have committed any offence. Therefore, order dated 3.7.2008, whereby petitioner has been ordered to be summoned, as an accused, is alleged to be illegal and without jurisdiction.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

Copy of complaint has been submitted with the present petition, which is Annexure P-2. A reading of the complaint shows that cheque was issued by respondent No. 2 Lekh Raj to discharge his existing liability. The present petitioner was in no way responsible for the discharge of liability by respondent No. 2. There was an independent agreement between the petitioner and respondent No. 2, pertaining to some commercial transaction, to which complainant (respondent No.1 herein) was not a signatory.

In view of above stated position, petitioner cannot be said to have committed the alleged offence, u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, present petition is allowed and the aforesaid order dated 3.7.2008 is set aside as against the petitioner.