- (1.) Prayer in this petition is for quashing of Criminal Complaint No.159 dated 04.03.2010, titled as " Dr. Gurpreet Kaur Versus M/S. Makson Retailers Pvt. Ltd. & another", filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ( in short, "N.I.Act"), as well as the order dated 02.03.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, vide which the petitioners-accused had been summoned to face trial for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. The petition has primarily been filed on the following two issues:- (1)the cheques in dispute were given to the respondent-complainant as security, therefore, the complaint was not maintainable; and (2) the petitioners-accused had moved an application under Section 147 of the N.I.Act for compounding of the offence.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners-accused had not addressed arguments with regard to the first issue but he vehemently argued that the petitioners-accused were ready to pay the disputed cheque amount along with compensation to the respondent-complainant, therefore, the learned trial court should have allowed the compounding of the offence in terms of Section 147 of N.I.Act. He further submitted that the pendency of the complaint and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom would be sheer abuse of the process of law, therefore, the impugned complaint and the summoning order are liable to the quashed.
(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent -complainant submitted that the first contention raised in the petition by the petitioners-accused is not tenable in view of the averments made in the complaint to the effect that the show rooms were leased out to the petitioners-accused in 2008 by M/S. Ansal Plaza Management Company, C/o Ansal Plaza, Uptown Opposite Haveli, G.T.Road, Jalandhar, and the security etc had been given to M/S. Ansal Plaza Management Company, Jalandhar. He further submitted that the respondentcomplainant was allotted the show rooms at a later stage and, thereafter, fresh lease deeds were executed, therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioners-accused to issue cheques in favour of the respondent-complainant as security cheques. He further submitted that the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners-accused was not sustainable since the respondent-complainant did not want to compromise the matter with the petitioners-accused. He further submitted that in a latest pronouncement in the matter of JIK Industries Limited & Ors. vs. Amarlal V. Jumani and Another, 2012 1 RCR(Cri) 822, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that without the consent of the complainant-aggrieved person, the matter cannot be allowed to be compounded.;