issued a cheque from his independent account, he is wholly responsible for the dishonour of the cheque. In the present case, the defacto complainant included the name of the petitioner as first accused in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding entered between the defacto complainant and the petitioner, even if no cheque is issued, the remedy available for the defacto complainant is to approach the civil Court and not the criminal Court. The second accused undertaken to pay a sum of Rs.2,61,00,000/- and issued a cheque from his independent account. When the second accused is responsible for dishonor of the cheque, under no stretch of imagination, a complaint under Section 138 of the Act can be filed against the petitioner, who is not a signatory to the cheque and also not a joint account holder. In such view of the matter, I do not find any merit on the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act, for the cheque issued by the second accused. As stated above, if there is any grievance against the petitioner, the respondent-defacto complainant can workout his remedy through civil Court but not by filling proceedings under Section 138 of the Act, without any jurisdiction.
