drawer in favour of the parties like the Respondent No. 1/Complainant and upon presentation of the said cheque, the Bank returns it unpaid. The cheque in this case was drawn by a person, namely, the son of the present Petitioner/Original Accused No. 2. The account was also maintained by him with the banker. That cheque was for payment of money and on account of liability of the son. If such is the basis of the allegations in the complaint itself, then, in the absence of any other person committing an offence within the meaning of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, I do not see how the Petitioner could have been arraigned as an accused. Merely because, he is father and the dealings were by the son but, independently, and not as a part of joint business activity, then, all the more the process could not have been issued against the present Petitioner/Original Accused No. 2. The Petitioner could not, prima facie, stated to have committed any offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. For all these reasons and when the complainant/Respondent No. 1 is absent, though duly served and has not denied any of the allegations or the statement made in the present Petition, it is allowed. The order passed issuing process in Criminal Case No. 23272 of 2012 dated 6 th November, 2012 is quashed and set aside to the extent the same calls upon the Petitioner to remain present and answer the charge in the criminal case.
