ORDER : S. MURALIDHAR, J. 1. This petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Code of Criminal Procedure') seeks the quashing of Complaint titled K.S. Consupro India (P) Limited v. Ganpati Oil India Limited Case No. 105/1/06 u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 ('NI Act') pending in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate ('MM'), Delhi and all proceedings consequent thereto. 2. The aforementioned complaint was filed by Respondent M/s. K.S. Consupro India Limited against the Petitioners Ganpati Oil Pvt. Ltd and Manish Aggarwal who was described as its director. The complaint was in relation to the alleged non-realisation of cheque No. 371548 dated 2nd September, 2005 for the sum of Rs. 17,31,719/- drawn on State Bank of India ('SBI'), Commercial Branch, Gwalior issued by Petitioner No. 1 in favour of the complainant. The said cheque when presented by the complainant for payment through its Bankers Union Bank of India, Khari Baoli, Delhi was returned unpaid. On the basis of the said complaint the Petitioners were summoned by the learned MM for the offence u/s 138, NI Act. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners points out that the aforementioned cheque was returned unpaid by the SBI, New Delhi with the remarks: 'present in B.C.' According to the Petitioner B.C. stood for 'Bank concerned'. It is submitted that in terms of Section 138, NI Act offence is attracted only in two eventualities. The first is that the cheque issued in favour of the drawee must be returned dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. The other is that it should be returned dishonoured on the ground that amount of the cheque exceeds the arrangement made by the drawer of the cheque with the Bank on which it is drawn. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shri Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd. Vs. Jayaswals NECO Ltd., AIR 2001 SC 1161 . It is accordingly submitted that the basic ingredient of the offence u/s 138, NI Act was not made out in the instant case. 4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent on the other hand submits that the reason for non-payment was that the cheque was required to be presented to the 'branch concerned'. The non-payment was not due to the fault of the drawee since the cheque was presented through the drawee's Banker to the central clearing branch at SBI, New Delhi. 4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent on the other hand submits that the reason for non-payment was that the cheque was required to be presented to the 'branch concerned'. The non-payment was not due to the fault of the drawee since the cheque was presented through the drawee's Banker to the central clearing branch at SBI, New Delhi. In other words it is submitted that the reason offered for non-clearance of the cheque was not a valid one and that the offence would in any event stand attracted. It is further submitted that despite receipt of notice the Petitioners did not reply and therefore a prima facie case must be held to be made out in favour of the complainant. It is submitted that the question whether in fact the offence u/s 138, NI Act stood attracted should be left to be decided at the trial. 5. The submissions of Counsel for the parties have been considered. The admitted position is that the cheque in question did not get dishonoured either due to insufficiency of funds or that the cheque amount exceeded the arrangement with the drawer's Bank. Section 138, NI Act cannot be said to be attracted when the cheque is returned unpaid on the ground that it was not presented at the proper branch of a Bank. In fact the title to Chapter XVII of NI Act reads: "On penalties in case of dishonour of certain cheques for insufficiency of funds in the accounts." The title to Section 138, NI Act also reads: "Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc. of funds in the account." It is, therefore, not possible for this Court to agree with the submission of learned Counsel for the Respondent that the dishonour for some other reason like the cheque not being presented at the proper branch of the Bank of the drawer would attract the offence u/s 138, NI Act. Since the above facts are not really in dispute, no purpose will be served in sending the Petitioners to face trial if ultimately there is no likelihood of their being convicted. 6. In Shri Ishar Alloys Steels Limited v. Jayaswals NECO Limited, it was observed in paras 7 and 8 as under (SCC p. 1253): 7. Since the above facts are not really in dispute, no purpose will be served in sending the Petitioners to face trial if ultimately there is no likelihood of their being convicted. 6. In Shri Ishar Alloys Steels Limited v. Jayaswals NECO Limited, it was observed in paras 7 and 8 as under (SCC p. 1253): 7. Section 138 provides that where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a 'Banker' for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by 'the Bank' unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that Bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence punishable with imprisonment as prescribed therein subject to the conditions mentioned in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the proviso. Section 3 of the Act defines the 'Banker' to include any person acting as a Banker and any post office saving Bank. Section 72 of the Act provides that a cheque must, in order to charge the drawer, be presented at the Bank upon which it is drawn before the relations between the drawer and his Banker has been altered to the prejudice of the drawer. 8. The use of the words 'a Bank' and 'the Bank' in the section is indicator of the intention of the Legislature. The former is indirect article and the latter is pre-fixed by direct article. If the Legislature intended to have the same meanings for 'a Bank' and 'the Bank', there was no cause or occasion for mentioning it distinctly and differently by using two different articles. It is worth noticing that the word 'Banker' in Section 3 of the Act is pre-fixed by the indefinite article 'a' and the word 'Bank' where the cheque is intended to be presented u/s 138 is pre-fixed by the definite article 'the'. The same section permits a person to issue a cheque on an account maintained by him with 'a Bank' and makes him liable for criminal prosecution if it is returned by 'the Bank' unpaid. The same section permits a person to issue a cheque on an account maintained by him with 'a Bank' and makes him liable for criminal prosecution if it is returned by 'the Bank' unpaid. The payment of the cheque is contemplated by 'the Bank' meaning thereby where the person issuing the cheque has an account. 'The' is the word used before nouns, with a specifying of particularising effect opposed to the indefinite or generalising force of 'a' or 'an'. It determines what particular thing is meant; that is, what particular thing we are to assume to be meant. 'The' is always mentioned to denote particular thing or a person. 'The' would, therefore, refer implicitly to a specified Bank and not any Bank. 'The Bank' referred to in Clause (a) to the proviso to Section 138 of the Act would mean the drawee Bank on which the cheque is drawn and not all Banks where the cheque is presented for collection including the Bank of the payee, in whose favour the cheque is issued. 7. As far as the present case is concerned the ingredients of Section 138, NI Act are not even prima facie made out against the Petitioners. The cheque was not dishonoured for any of the reasons mentioned in Section 138, NI Act. Being a provision in a penal statute it requires to be strictly interpreted. It is not possible to read contingencies not envisaged by that provision into it in order to widen the net of culpability. 8. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the Complaint titled K.S. Consupro India (P) Limited v. Ganpati Oil India Limited Case No. 105/1/ 06 u/s 138, NI Act pending in the Court of the learned MM, Delhi and all proceedings consequent thereto are hereby quashed. 9. The petition and the pending application are disposed of. Order be given dasti. 10. A copy of order be sent to the concerned learned MM forthwith.