AMANDEEP KAUR Vs. SARVESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Against the petitioner, complaint bearing No.COMA-59-2016 of 23/3/2017 became instituted before the learned JMIC, Ludhiana. The complaint (supra), was cast under the provisions of Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The learned Magistrate concerned, after perusing the preliminary evidence, as became adduced qua the complaint (supra), proceeded to make a summoning order, upon, the petitioner herein.

(2.) The petitioner becomes aggrieved from the summoning order, issued upon her, and, has prayed for the quashing of the summoning order made on 4/1/2016 hence appended as Annexure P-2, with the instant petition. Moreover, the petitioner has also asked for the quashing of the complaint (supra).

(3.) During the pendency of the complaint (supra), admittedly a compromise occurred inter-se the complainant, and, the petitioner herein, and, also with one Gurmeet Singh, the real brother of the petitioner herein. In the afore drawn compromise, the real brother of the petitioner herein, namely Gurmeet Singh, undertook to discharge the liabilities, as became encumbered, upon the petitioner herein, and, as arises from the issuance of the dishonoured negotiable instrument(s), to the complainant by the petitioner. Though, in pursuance to the afore made compromise, rather one Gurmeet Singh purportedly for discharging the there through(s) encumbered liability upon him, hence issued a negotiable instrument to the complainant. However, upon its presentation before the bank concerned, it became dishonoured. Consequently, the complainant was led to institute against him a complaint bearing No.COMA/321/2019, before the learned JMIC Ludhiana. Even in the complaint (supra), the learned Magistrate concerned, made summoning orders, upon Gurmeet Singh. However, Gurmeet Singh has neither challenged the summoning order nor has asked for the quashing of the complaint (supra), through his making a motion before this Court.