NIRMAL YADAV, J. - (1.) BY this common judgment, I shall be disposing of three Criminal Misc. Petitions bearing Nos. 43826-M, 43829-M and 43832-M of 2005, as the questions of fact and law involved therein are identical in nature. However, for the sake of convenience, facts are being extracted from the petition viz. Criminal Misc. No. 43826-M of 2005.
(2.) THROUGH the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioners seek quashing of complaint dated 8.7.2000 (Annexure P-3) and setting aside the order dated 19.4.2004 (Annexure P-5) vide which petitioners were summoned by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner-firm deals in the business of advancing loan to the parties. M/s. L.W.S. Knit Wear, L.W.S. Exports Limited and L.W.S. Knit Wear Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the loanee firms") and its partners had been taking loans from the petitioner-firm for the last many years. The loanee firms were in need of money and requested the petitioner-firm to advance them loans. The petitioner-firm agreed to advance loans to the loanee firms by issuing three cheques worth Rs. 5,98,785.80, Rs. 5,80,000/- and Rs. 5,74,850/- bearing Nos. 696265, 696266 and 696267 dated 26.2.2000, 28.2.2000 and 25.5.2000 respectively. After issuance of the cheques, the loanee firms did not comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement of loan, therefore, the petitioners instructed their bank not to encash their cheques. This intimation was also sent to the loanee firms. The Directors of the loanee firms duped the respondent-bank and pledged the above mentioned cheques having full knowledge of the fact that the cheques will not be honoured. It is pleaded that the petitioners had no dealing with the respondent-bank. On the asking of the loanee firms, the respondent-bank presented the cheques, but these were dishonoured on account of "insufficiency of funds".
(3.) RESPONDENT -Bank served a legal notice dated 24.5.2000 (Annexure P-1) on one of the partners of be petitioner firm for making the payment. The petitioner immediately submitted a reply thereto on 3.6.2000 (Annexure P-2) specifically stating that there existed no relationship between respondent-bank and the petitioner-firm, nor was the petitioner-firm under any liability to the bank, therefore, no offence under Sections 138 to 142 of the Act was made out against them.;