- (1.) THIS is an application under Section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing the complaint, dated January 22, 1993, annexed as Annexure P-2 with the petition, under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act, and the summoning order, dated February 11, 1993, annexed as annexure P-3, passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nabha, on the following grounds :- (i) that the complainant is not the holder of the cheque in due course and is not competent to file a complaint on his own, as the cheque was issued through the payee account of Ms. Chamanpreet Kaur, daughter of the respondent; (ii) that under Section 138 read with Section 142 (a) of the Negotiable Instruments act, complaint can be filed only by payee or holder in due course. Since the complainant is not holder in due course, the complaint is not maintainable at the behest of the respondent-complainant, may be he is the father of Ms. Chamanpreet Kaur in whose name the cheque was issued; (Hi) that the Court has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint; (iv) that the summoning order, Annexure P-3, suffers from a palpable error because the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nabha accepted the averments of the respondent-complainant at its face value and although exhibited the offending uncleared cheque Exhibit P-4 on record on January 21, 1993 but failed to notice, that it was an account payee cheque in the name of the daughter of the respondent-complainant and was not issued in the name of the bearer.
(2.) REPLY has been filed by the respondent in which the abovementioned points made out to quash the complaint and the summoning order have been rebutted.
(3.) IT is stated in para 7 of the reply that the complaint was rightly filed by the answering respondent as the cheque was issued in the name of Miss. Chamanpreet kaur, daughter of the dependent or bearer. It was never issued through the account payee of Miss. Chamanpreet Kaur and bare look at the cheque falsifies the version of the petitioner. The complainant was the holder in due course and, therefore, was competent to file the complaint in question. As stated above, the cheque was a bearer cheque. Moreover, the whole amount had been paid by the complainant-respondent from his personal account at Nabha. Ms. Chamanpreet Kaur daughter of the deponent has no independent source of income and is dependent on her father, that is, the complainant.;