ORDER 1. With the consent of both the parties, matter was taken for final disposal. 2. In this case, a complaint filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been dismissed against the respondent Susana who was arrayed as respondent no. 1 since she issued the cheques in this case which were dishonoured. Her father-in-law was arrayed as respondent no. 2 against whom no cognizance was taken by the trial Judge. That order has not been challenged by the petitioner even in this petition. 3. In nutshell it was the case of the petitioner that an agreement was entered into between the petitioner with the second respondent for purchase of plot in Bekunthdham colony for which a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- were paid by the petitioner to the second respondent. However, the second respondent failed to comply with as part of the specific performance, even though the petitioner was ready and willing to pay the balance amount. This denial was basically on the point that the second respondent has no authority to execute the sale deed. It was also his case that towards repayment of Rs. 3,00,000/- which was earlier paid by the petitioner to the second respondent. Two cheques of Rs. 1,50,000- bearing no. 635827 and 635828 dated 12.06.2006 and 20.06.2006 were issued by first respondent for on behalf of second respondent, being his daughter-in-law. These cheques were dishonoured on presentation. 4. Notice sent by the petitioner to the first respondent was returned unserved whereas notice by the petitioner was served on the second respondent. Liability towards the two cheques were not discharged by the respondent. Thus, application under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed. The learned trial Court has not taken cognizance against the second respondent, but as regard the first respondent, complaint has been dismissed primarily holding that the petitioner failed to prove consideration for issuance of that cheques. 5. Apparently, in this case, complainant has failed to prove consideration for issuance of cheques by the first respondent to the petitioner which were dishonoured. The petitioner has not taken any steps for contesting against the second respondent, as such, the complainant failed to prosecute his case on the ground that the cheques in question were issued by the first respondent for and on behalf of the second respondent. The petitioner has not taken any steps for contesting against the second respondent, as such, the complainant failed to prosecute his case on the ground that the cheques in question were issued by the first respondent for and on behalf of the second respondent. The trial Court has made the following observations:- ^^ & gLrxr ekeys esa ,d egRoiw.kZ fof/kd fcanq Hkh gS ftl ij bl U;k;ky; dks fopkj djuk gS D;kasfd ifjoknh ds dFku vuqlkj mlus vuqca/k ds isVs /kujkf’k vfHk;qDr ds llqj dks nh FkhjA mlds }kjk vfHk;qDr Jherh lqlUuk dks dksbZ Hkh /kujkf’k m/kkj ugha nh xbZ FkhA vfHk;qDr dk llqj iszepUn dks ifjokni= es vkjksih ds :i esa fy[krs gq, ifjokn is’k fd;k x;k Fkk iajrq U;k;ky; ds }kjk vfHk;qDr ds llqj izsepUn ds fo#) vijk/k dk laKku ugha fy;k og bl ekeys esa vkjksih ugha gSA ifjoknh us izfrijh{k.k ds nkSjku dafMdk 17 esa bl ckr dks Lohdkj fd;k gS fd bl ekeys ds vkjksih ls mldk edku dk lkSnk ugha gqvk Fkk vkSj mlus :i;s Hkh vfHk;qDr ds llqj iszepUn dks fn;s Fks mldk tks Hkh laO;ogkj gqvk og vfHk;qDr ds llqj vkj rstdqekj ls gqvk Fkk ,slh fLFkfr esa tc ifjoknh us gLrxr ekeys ds vkjksih dks dksbZ /kujkf’k gh m/kkj ugha nh rks vfHk;qDr dk mldh /kujkf’k ykSVkus dk dksbZ fof/k nkf;Ro dSls mRiUu gksxkA ;fn dqN nsj ds fy;s ,slk eku Hkh fy;k tk, fd ifjoknh us vfHk;qDr dks dksbZ mRiUu gksrk gS rks og vfHk;qDr ds llqj dk gksxk u fd vfHk;qDr dk blfy, vfHk;qDr ds llqj ds fof/kd nkf;Ro ds fy, vfHk;qDr dks mRrjnk;h ugha Bgjk;k tk ldrk gSA 16- gLrxr ekeys esa vfHkys[k ij vkbZ ekSf[kd ,oa nLrkosth lk{; dh mijksDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij bl U;k;ky; dk ;g fu”d”kZ jgk gS fd ifjoknh ;g lkfcr djus esa lQy ugha gqvk gS fd vfHk;qDr us _.k ;k fof/kd nkf;Ro ds fuoZgu gsrq iz-ih- 1 o 2 ds fookfnr pSd ifjoknh dks fn;s Fks blfy, U;k;ky; fopkj.kh; iz’u dz- 2 dks uklkfcr Bgjkrk gSA 17- gLrxr ekeys esa ifjoknh vius ekeys dks vfHk;qDr ds fo#) ;qfDr;qDr lansg ls ijs izekf.kr djus esa lQy ugah gqbZ gS vr% ;g U;k;ky; lansg dk ykHk nsrs gq, vfHk;qDr dks ijdzkE; fy[kr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 138 ds vkjksi ls nks”keqDr Bgjkrk gSA** 6. Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act permits a person to file a complaint and receive the payment of money for the discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability, which aspect has not been proved in this case by the petitioner. The provision of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for the sake of reference is reproduced hereunder:- “138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.- 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 and shall without prejudice to any other persons of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for [a term which may be extended to two years], or with five which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless- (a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, [within thirty days] of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. Explanation.- for the purposes of this section, “debt or other liability” means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.] 7. Explanation.- for the purposes of this section, “debt or other liability” means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.] 7. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court. The appeal is therefore, dismissed.