AJAI LAMBA, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., has been brought by Balraj Kumar wherein relief prayed for is for quashing of orders dated 28.2.2003 (Annexure P-2) and 12.6.2000 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Sessions Judge, Ludhiana and JMIC, Ludhiana, respectively. The application under Section 245, Cr.P.C. for discharge was accepted by the JMIC, Ludhiana. The revision of petitioner-Balraj Kumar has been dismissed.
(2.) A brief reference to the facts is required. Statedly, respondent and the petitioner were partners in a firm. On 12.10.1991, a settlement was arrived at between the complainant (petitioner) and the accused (respondent). In the terms of the settlement, it was settled the petitioner will be discharged from liability of the Punjab Financial Corporation, Kuldeep Kaur (respondent) would be appointed as Managing Director w.e.f. 12.10.1991 and two more directors will be appointed in place of petitioner-Balraj Kumar. The new directors would furnish fresh guarantees and will get discharged the guarantees of Balraj Kumar from the Punjab Financial Corporation. As per the contents of settlement, two cheques bearing No. 8224149 for a sum of Rs. 4 lacs and No. 8224150 for a sum of Rs. 2 lacs drawn on Canara Bank, Clock Tower Branch, Ludhiana were given to the petitioner. It was further stipulated that the cheques would not be presented up to 15.3.1992.
(3.) ON 30.3.1992, the petitioner-complainant presented the cheques for encashment through his Banker Canara Bank, but were returned with the endorsement "funds insufficient." The accused was served with a notice through counsel. The accused failed to pay the amount and, therefore, a criminal complaint was instituted. Preliminary evidence was led, whereafter the respondent was summoned vide order dated 13.8.1993. Subsequently, an application for discharge was filed. Essentially, four grounds were taken; the first being that the numbers of the cheques which were mentioned in the settlement did not tally with the cheques that were presented by the petitioner; secondly; that Kuldeep Kaur (respondent) was served in her personal capacity and not as the Managing Director; thirdly, that in the notice issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act'), double the amount had been demanded and fourthly, that the complainant being a partner, could not prosecute another partner of the same firm. Although, the respondent was directed to be discharged on all the four grounds by the trial Magistrate, however, in the revision filed by the petitioner, the revisional court did not accept second and fourth ground.;