PALWINDER KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Cr.P.C.'), the petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of complaint No. 030200068502012 dated 19.04.2012 for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (in short 'the Act') (Annexure P4), summoning order dated 19.04.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar (Annexure P5) and proceedings emanating therefrom.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner contends that Gurpreet Kaur (complainant) was married to Bikram Singh Pujji, brother of the petitioner on 26.01.2011. There arose marital differences between the complainant and her husband which led to registration of FIR against Bikram Singh Pujji and other family members at New Delhi. In order to resolve the matrimonial dispute, brother of the petitioner came to Amritsar on 30.11.2011 where all the relatives and friends of respondent No. 2 had gathered. They put pressure upon brother of the petitioner and his relatives to settle the matter as per illegal demands of respondent No. 2 and her family members or face the criminal proceedings in view of FIR got registered by the complainant. The petitioner and other family members were coerced to enter into a memorandum of understanding dated 30.11.2011. Since the brother of the petitioner was not carrying any money and his cheque book, the petitioner handed over cheque of Rs. 4,50,000/ - to respondent No. 2 which was got encashed by her. Another cheque bearing No. 733992 dated 05.02.2012 in the sum of Rs. 5,50,000/ - drawn on State Bank of India, Branch East Mohan Nagar, Amritsar (cheque in dispute) was issued by the petitioner from her account in favour of respondent No. 2 on the condition that it will remain in the custody of the mediator of the parties namely Hira Lal son of Kundan Lal. It was specifically mentioned in the memorandum of understanding (Annexure P1) that respondent No. 2 shall be entitled to encash the cheque after recording first statement in the petition to be filed under Section 13 -B of the Hindu Marriage Act (in short 'HMA'). It is argued with vehemence that petition under Section 13 -B HMA was never filed by the parties and respondent No. 2 fraudulently presented the cheque for encashment and the same was not honoured. Counsel would submit that the cheque in dispute was not issued in discharge of any legally enforceable debt or other liability, therefore, no offence under Section 138 of the Act is made out and thus the criminal proceedings initiated by respondent No. 2 for the said offence are liable to be quashed.

(3.) I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records.