- (1.) - Ramesh Kumar and others have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint filed by the respondent in Court on 6. 4. 1991 and the order dated 18. 7. 1992 whereby the petitioners were charged by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Pathankot to stand trial for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter called the Act ).
(2.) THE brief facts of the case, necessary for the disposal, of this petition, as given in the complaint are that on 20. 1. 1991 a function was to be held in Gurdwara Sant ashram, Mission Road, Pathankot, where petitioners No. 1 to 3 were to supply packed vegetarian and non-vegetarian dinner to the purchasers of the tickets for lucky draw. The respondent was to supply the dinner at the rate of Rs. 36/- per packet and the approximate cost of the packed dinner was Rs. 2,24,000/ -. Out of this amount, Rs. 50,000/- were paid in cash to the respondents at the time the order was placed and for Rs. 1,00,000/- a cheque bearing No. 797015 dated 14. 1. 1991 was drawn on State bank, Kathua Branch. This cheque was signed by petitioners No. 1 to 3. The cheque was presented to the Bank for encashment but it was received back on 26. 2. 1991 along with memo bearing remarks 'refer to Drawer'. A notice was then served on the petitioners according to the provisions of the Act, but the amount of cheque was not paid.
(3.) THE petitioners alleged in the petition that the complaint and the other material brought on record did not make out any case to warrant conviction of the petitioners under Section 138 of the Act. Section 138 of the Act contemplated issuance of a cheque for the discharge of a debt or liability, but at the time, when the cheque in question was issued there was no debt or liability against the petitioners which they were to discharge. The respondent had not supplied the material according to the agreement and there was even no future liability which could be legally enforced against the petitioners. It was further averred that the complaint should have been tried as a summons case but the trial Court adopted an illegal procedure and tried the complaint as a warrant case which caused prejudice to the petitioners.;