JUDGMENT : Nobodyappears for the respondents despite service and filing of Vakalatnama . 2.This is an interesting matter in which two cheques were issued in the name of one Balkrishna Rathi , who is no more. After his death, his wife Smt . Radhabai has filed acomplaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the presentpetitioner on the allegations that present petitioner was the drawer of cheques , which were dishonoured on presentation, but despite notice, the petitioner is not making paymenttowards the dishonoured cheques .In the complaint itself it has been mentioned by complainant Smt . Radhabai that cheques were drawn in the name of Balkrishna Rathi . His son has prosecuted the complaint, but whois also no more. Other Legal Representatives have been arrayed in the complaintand the case is at the stage of evidence, however, no evidence has beenrecorded. 3.Grievance of the petitioner is that the complaint so filed should not have beenentertained and in fact no cognizance should have been taken, in as much asonce the person in whose favour the cheques were issued is no more. In similar case effortswere made to launch prosecution on the basis of dishonoured cheques issued in favour ofdead party and a complaint was filed under Section 138 of the NegotiableInstruments Act. This Court in the case of Kishore Goyal Vs. Hanif Paid, reported in 2010(2) M.P.H.T. 426 , has made the following observations : - "Inthe present case, cheque is in favour of deceased/ Kudrat Patel. In the complaint it isnowhere stated that when Kudrat Patel has died. Similarly, except in title nowhere it has been stated by therespondent that how the respondent is entitled for the cheque amount. It is also not mentioned in the complaint that who are the legalrepresentatives of deceased/ Kudrat Patel and prior tohis death any Will was executed by the deceased or not Rs .Since the complaint has been filed by a person in whose favour no cheque was issued by the petitioner, therefore, inthe opinion of this Court, no cognizance could have been taken against thepetitioner for an offence alleged to have been committed by the petitionerkeeping in view sub-section (a) of Section 142 of NI Act. In view of this, thepetition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order passed bylearned Trial Court and also the complaint filed by the respondentsquashed." 4.Facts of this case almost similar. In view of this, thepetition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order passed bylearned Trial Court and also the complaint filed by the respondentsquashed." 4.Facts of this case almost similar. Accordingly, the complaint filed byrespondent against the petitioner based upon two cheques ,which were issued by the petitioner in favour of Balkrishna Rathi , could not havebeen presented during his lifetime, is hereby quashedunder Section 482 of Cr.PC . C.C. as per rules.