JUDGMENT : SANDEEP MEHTA, J. 1. The case at hand presents one of the starkest example of misuse of human relationship one is likely to come across in a life time. The petitioner herein is a 76 years old pensioner retired from Railways, who has been dragged into a criminal litigation by none other than the respondent No. 2, his own son, who has apparently joined hands with his wife to implicate the petitioner in a criminal case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner herein, retired from service of Railways in the year 2000 and is residing alongwith his wife in his self-acquired house located at 9, Maan Mahal, Sher Vilas, Police Station Ratanada, Jodhpur. The respondent No. 2 Pankaj Agrawal is the only son of the petitioner and the complainant of the case at hand. The petitioner claims to have discharged all his parental duties towards the respondent No. 2 and married him to Smt. Rama on 30.01.2001. It is asserted that right after the marriage of the respondent No. 2 with Smt. Rama, his attitude towards his parents changed and the husband and wife started misbehaving with them. The petitioner claims that he and his wife tried to tolerate and put up with this ill behaviour considering the fact that the respondent No. 2 is their only offspring. The respondent No. 2 was in service of NIIT, Delhi. Soon after his marriage, he shifted to Delhi with his wife. It is asserted by the petitioner in this petition that whenever the respondent No. 2 came down to Jodhpur with his wife, they used to misbehave and quarrel with the parents. Finally, the petitioner and his wife Asha were so disggusted with this misbehaviour that they were compelled to issue a public declaration/notice in the Rajasthan Patrika newspaper, Jodhpur Edition dated 17.03.2006 disowning all relations with Pankaj and Rama. Sometime after publication of this notice, the respondent No. 2 and his wife approached the petitioners and expressed their unconditional apology in an attempt to patch up the relationship. The petitioner was lured into the trap laid by the respondent, which was nothing but a gimmick and a drama. Sometime after publication of this notice, the respondent No. 2 and his wife approached the petitioners and expressed their unconditional apology in an attempt to patch up the relationship. The petitioner was lured into the trap laid by the respondent, which was nothing but a gimmick and a drama. The petitioner came to know of the vision ailment suffered by the respondent No. 2 and thus, out of love, affection and sympathy for his only son, he condoned the misdeeds of Pankaj and gave him significant financial aid to the tune of Rs. 44,79,494/- through banking transactions. It is claimed that the petitioner has paid a sum of nearly Rs. 45 lacs to the respondent No. 2 since 2006 so as to provide him financial assistance for meeting his medical and logistic needs. The petitioner claims that in the year 2013-2014, the respondent No. 2 requested the petitioner to provide him financial aid to purchase a flat in a scheme of residential flats floated by the Delhi Development Authority expressing inability to buy the same on his own. Upon this, the petitioner sent three signed blank cheques bearing Nos. 079760, 079761 and 079762 from his SBI savings account to the respondent No. 2 through Registered AD post. After three months of receiving the cheques, the respondent No. 2 apprised the petitioner that he could not be selected in the lottery draw held by the DDA and the three cheques sent by the petitioner had been cancelled. The petitioner bonafide believed this statement and did not take any further action in this behalf. Even thereafter, the petitioner claims to have continued providing financial assistance to the respondent No. 2. However, to his utter shock and surprise, the petitioner received mobile messages from his bank, i.e. SBI, in the month of August 2016 notifying him that aforementioned three cheques had been presented and dishonoured. Cheque No. 079760 was filled in for a sum of Rs. 3 crores, the cheque No. 079761 was filled in for a sum of Rs. 10 lacs and the third cheque No. 079762 was filled in for a sum of Rs. 4 crores and were presented for encashment. Cheque No. 079760 was filled in for a sum of Rs. 3 crores, the cheque No. 079761 was filled in for a sum of Rs. 10 lacs and the third cheque No. 079762 was filled in for a sum of Rs. 4 crores and were presented for encashment. The petitioner made enquiry from the bank and came to know that the cheque of 3 crores was presented by the respondent No. 2 Pankaj herein, whereas the other two cheques were filled in and presented by his wife, namely, Smt. Rama Agrawal. The petitioner and his wife receive sums of Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 13,000/- respectively as monthly pension. The petitioner further claims that he got a sum of Rs. 60 to 70 lacs at the time of his retirement, of which major part was spent in providing financial aid to the respondent No. 2. Immediately on coming to know about misuse of these three cheques, the petitioner lodged an FIR bearing No. 259/2018 at Police Station Ratanada through a complaint submitted in the court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jodhpur. The petitioner and his wife were manhandled and beaten by the respondent No. 2 and his wife, on which the petitioner filed a complaint against them at the Police Station Ratanada on 04.08.2016 under Sections 107 and 151 CrPC on 04.08.2016 and the police bound them down on the very same day. The anticipatory bail application filed by the respondent No. 2 and his wife Smt. Rama in connection with FIR No. 259/2016 lodged by the petitioner has reportedly been dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur. Smt. Rama filed a complaint under the provisions of the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the petitioner herein alleging inter alia that she was ousted from the matrimonial premises on 15.07.2016 and her stridhan articles had misappropriated. The said application filed by Smt. Rama was rejected by the Metropolitan Magistrate No. 7, Jodhpur on 07.10.2016 and the appeal filed against the said order too was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Jodhpur on 13.10.2017. Smt. Rama also filed an FIR No. 138/2016 against the petitioner and his wife for the offences under Section 498-A, 406 and 323 IPC at the Police Station Mahila Thana, Jodhpur East, in which the police has given a negative final report after investigation. Smt. Rama also filed an FIR No. 138/2016 against the petitioner and his wife for the offences under Section 498-A, 406 and 323 IPC at the Police Station Mahila Thana, Jodhpur East, in which the police has given a negative final report after investigation. While submitting the negative final report, the Investigating Officer collected positive evidence to the effect that the petitioner had provided financial aid to the tune of Rs. 40 to 42 lacs to his son Shri Pankaj and that the allegation of demand of dowry was totally false and fabricated. It is asserted in the petition that the respondent No. 2 and his wife conspired together and misused three blank signed cheques sent to them by the petitioner in the year 2014 for purchasing a flat. The flat was never purchased and instead, the cheques were filled in fraudulently by Pankaj and hise wife for satiating their greed and to extort money from the petitioner. Unrealistic amounts to the tune of Rs. 3 crores, 10 lacs and 4 crores were filled in the cheques and the same were presented for encashment in the bank. The petitioner was in no manner liable nor was he capable to pay these kinds of exorbitant sums of money, which the respondent No. 2 and his wife intentionally and fraudulently filled in the dishonoured cheques. It is further mentioned that the entire endeavour of the respondent, while presenting the cheques was to harass the petitioner and to extort money from him. The petitioner has further alleged that foundation of the legally enforceable debt, which has been propounded in the complaint, is based on an aspersion that the petitioner and his wife executed a receipt, detailing therein the numbers of the cheques with the amounts and provided it to respondent No. 2 Pankaj Agrawal. The petitioner has specifically denied having executed any such receipt. It is further mentioned at para No. 19 of the miscellaneous petition that the cheques which were provided to the petitioner by the bank bear a printed instruction that the same would be valid only if presented for a sum of Rs. 10 lacs or under. The petitioner has further raised an objection regarding nonservice of the statutory notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in his quest for seeking quashing of the proceedings of the impugned complaint. 3. Mr. 10 lacs or under. The petitioner has further raised an objection regarding nonservice of the statutory notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in his quest for seeking quashing of the proceedings of the impugned complaint. 3. Mr. Rajat Dave, learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemen-tly urged that ex facie the respondent acted in a malafide and fraudulent manner while presenting the disputed cheque after deceitfully filling in a fictitious and unrealistic sum of Rs. 3 crores and the other two cheques, which were filled in and presented by his wife for sums of Rs. 10 lacs and Rs.4 crores respectively. 3 crores and the other two cheques, which were filled in and presented by his wife for sums of Rs. 10 lacs and Rs.4 crores respectively. He urges that the ground for receiving the cheques and the foundation of the so-called legally enforceable debt as set out in the complaint, which reads as below, is totally fictitious, created and conjectural:- ^^2- ;g gS fd vÁkFkhZ@eqfYte Áseeksgu xksfoyk us ÁkFkhZ@ifjoknh iadt vxzoky dks vyx ls O;olkf;d ifjlj o edku ysus] vkthou bykt] Hkj.k&iks"k.k vkSj iadt vxzoky }kjk vÁkFkhZ@eqfYte ds bl jgoklh; edku ls e; ifjokj ds pSd dk uksfVl nsrs le; rd jg jgk Fkk] esa viuh dekbZ ls yxk;s x;s 5 yk[k :i;s e; C;kt vnk djus ds mRrjnkf;Ro ls eqDr gksus ds fy, vÁkFkhZ@eqfYte Áseeksgu xksfoyk us ÁkFkhZ@ifjoknh iadt vxzoky dks rhu djksM+ :i;s nsus dk fu'p; fd;kA ftlds rgr vÁkFkhZ@eqfYte Áseeksgu xksfoyk us vius [kkrs dk ,d pSd la[;k 079760 :i;s rhu djksM+ dk vius [kkrs Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ,;jQkslZ LVs'ku] tks/kiqj dk fnukad 5-8-2016 dk ÁkFkhZ@ifjoknh iadt vxzoky ds uke ls vius gLrk{kj djds fn;kA vÁkFkhZ@eqfYte Áseeksgu xksfoyk us ÁkFkhZ@ifjoknh iadt vxzoky dks pSd nsrs le; vk'oLr fd;k Fkk fd mDr pSd tc Hkh vki vius cSad [kkrs esa fldjus ds fy, Mkyksxs rks ;g pSd esjs [kkrs ;kfu Áseeksgu xksfoyk ds [kkrs ls fldj dj ÁkFkhZ@ifjoknh iadt vxzoky ds cSad [kkrs esa vk tk;saxsA vÁkFkhZ@eqfYte us mlh jkst ÁkFkhZ@ifjoknh dh ifRu jek vxzoky dks Hkh ÁkFkhZ ifjoknh iadt vxzoky ds lkeus pSd fn;s] tks ÁkFkhZ@ifjoknh dh ifRu jek vxzoky o cPpksa ds fy;s fn;s FksA vÁkFkhZ@eqfYte Áseeksgu xksfoyk vkSj mldh ifRu Jhefr vk'kk xksfoyk us ÁkFkhZ@ifjoknh iadt vxzoky dh ifRu jek vxzoky ds lkeus dgk fd ;s pSd yks vkSj ;g jkthukek tks odhy lkgc ls fy[kkdj yk;s gS] bl ij vki nksuksa gLrk{kj dj nks vkSj rqjUr ;g edku [kkyh djks vkSj pys tkvks rc ÁkFkhZ@ifjoknh iadt vxzoky vkSj mldh ifRu jek vxzoky us vÁkFkhZ@eqfYte Áseeksgu xksfoyk dks dgk fd mijksDr pSd fldjus ds i'pkr gh ge bl jkthukes ij gLrk{kj djsaxs vkSj ;g ?kj [kkyh djds ;gka ls pys tk;saxsA rc vÁkFkhZ@eqfYte Áseeksgu xksfoyk us ÁkFkhZ@ifjoknh iadt vxzoky dks iw.kZ:i ls vk'oLr fd;k fd eSaus vkidks tks pSd fn;k mlesa of.kZr fnukad vFkok mldh fu/kkZfjr vof/k ds Hkhrj Hkhrj tc dHkh vius [kkrs esa fldjus ds fy, Mkysaxs rks esjs [kkrs ls ;kfu vÁkFkhZ@eqfYte Áseeksgu xksfoyk ds cSad [kkrs ls ÁkFkhZ@ifjoknh iadt vxzoky ds cSad [kkrs esa vk tkosxkA mijksDr rhuksa pSd fnukad 5-8-2016 dks nsus ds i'pkr~ vÁkFkhZ@eqfYte Áse eksgu xksfoyk us jlhn ekaxh rc ÁkFkhZ@ifjoknh iadt vxzoky dh ifRu Jherh jek vxzoky us fnukad 5-8-2016 dks ,d jlhn cukdj nhA ml jlhn ij jek vxzoky] iadt vxzoky] Áseeksgu xksfoyk vkSj Jherh vk'kk xksfoyk us gLrk{kj fd;sA pwafd mDr jlhn dh QksVksÁfr ?kj ds ckgj tkdj djokuk lEHko ugha Fkk blfy, ml jlhn dh ,d QksVks eksckby ds tfj;s yh xbZA jlhn dh QksVksÁfr bl ifjokn ds lkFk layXu gSA** 4. He urges that the house in question is exclusively owned by the petitioner himself and was built by him with his own sweat and blood. The respondent Pankaj and his wife have no stake or claim thereupon. He urged that it is a totally cooked up theory that the petitioner agreed to give such a huge sum of money to the respondent for getting the same house vacated. He further urges that the allegation set out in the complaint that the disputed cheque was given to the complainant for providing him life long maintenance; for purchasing commercial and residential premises etc. and for repaying the amount of Rs.5 lacs allegedly invested by him in the petitioner’s house is totally a cooked up figment of imagination. The petitioner, being a retired pensioner, could himself expect and lawfully claim maintenance from his son and not vice versa. He urges that the petitioner had disowned Pankaj and his wife way back in the year 2006 and thus, there was no occasion for Pankaj to have invested money in the petitioner’s house. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Lalit Kumar Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh [ (2008) 5 SCC 638 : 2008 (3) RLW 2278 (SC)], Mr. Dave urged that a cheque issued in furtherance of a compromise, if dishonoured, cannot be considered as creating a legally enforceable debt so as to entail proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Dave urged that a cheque issued in furtherance of a compromise, if dishonoured, cannot be considered as creating a legally enforceable debt so as to entail proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He has placed on record, copy of the order dated 13.10.2017 passed by the appellate court rejecting the appeal filed by Smt. Rama, wife of Pankaj Agrawal under the Domestic Violence Act, wherein the appellate court made the following observations:- ^^13- bl Ádkj ÁFke n`"V;k ,slk Árhr gksrk gS fd ÁR;FkhZ Áse eksgu tks fd vihykFkhZ Jherh jek] mlds ifr iadt o mlds cPpksa dks lgk;rk nsus ds fy, gj lEHko dksf'k'k dh gS vkSj tks nLrkost ÁLrqr fd;s x;s gSa mlesa cSad VªkatsD'ku ls jde fn;s tkus rFkk 44]79]494@& :i;s vc rd vihykFkhZ jek o mlds ifr iadt dks fn;s tk pqds gS vkSj ,slh fLFkfr esa ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd ÁR;FkhZ Áse eksgu us vius nkf;Roksa dk fuoZgu ugha fd;k tSlk vihykFkhZ Jherh jek dFku dj jgh gSA gekjs le{k iqfyl vf/kdkjh ds dFku dh QksVks Áfr gS ftlesa ;g tkfgj vk;k gS fd og ekSds ij x;k rks bl Ádj.k esa of.kZr rF;ksa ds foijhr vius vihykFkhZ Jherh jek o mlds ifr iadt dks yM+kbZ >xM+k djrs gq, ,oa /kedkrs gq, ik;k bl ij nksuksa dks /kkjk&107 o 151 n.M ÁfØ;k lafgrk esa ikcUn fd;kA ÁR;FkhZ Áse eksgu dk ;g Hkh vkjksi gS fd mlus vius iq= iadt dks xzsVj uks,Mk fodkl Ákf/kdj.k esa edku vkaoVu gsrq jftLVªs'ku djokus ds fy, rhu [kkyh pSd fn;s Fks ftls mlds iq= iadt us Øe'k% pkj djksM+] rhu djksM+ o nl yk[k dqy lkr djksM+ nl yk[k :i;s ds pSd vuknfjr djok fn;s vkSj bldh ,d ÁFke lwpuk fjiksVZ Hkh vuqla/kkuk/khu gSA 16- gekjh fouez jk; esa ?kjsyw fgalk ls efgykvksa dk lja{k.k vf/kfu;e ds rgr nh tkus okyh fjyhQ dks ÁHkkfor ugha D;ksafd bl vf/kfu;e esa dsoy ;g ns[kk tkuk gS fd D;k ihfM+r efgyk ftlds }kjk ifjokn fd;k x;k gS] ds }kjk U;k;ky; ds i;kZIr :i ls varfje vuqrks"k dh okaNk djrs gq, U;k;ky; ds le{k ÁFke n`"V;k ;g fl) dj fn;k gS fd mlds lkFk ?kjsyw fgalk gks jgh gS] bl Ádj.k esa vihykFkhZ Jherh jek ,slk djus esa vlQy jgh gSA ;gka ij ÁR;FkhZ Áse eksgu us u dsoy ;g lkfcr fd;k gS fd og vihykFkhZ Jherh jek vkSj mlds ifjokj dks vkfFkZd o ekSfæd :i ls lgk;rk nsrk vk;k gS cfYd mlds ckotwn Hkh vihykFkhZ Jherh jek o mlds ifr ds }kjk mudks ÁrkfM+r fd;k x;k vkSj blds fy, iqfyl dks gLr{ksi djuk iM+kA** 5. He urged that the appellate court, on the basis of substantive evidence expressly concluded that the petitioner had paid a huge sum of Rs. 44,79,494/- to Pankaj, Smt. Rama and their children by way of financial aid from time to time. He, thus, urges that the impugned complaint is nothing short of a gross abuse of process of court and hence, the proceedings thereof deserve to be quashed and struck down. 6. Per contra, the respondent Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, appearing in person, vehemently urged that he and his wife were illegally ousted by the petitioner and his wife from the shared residential household, wherein, he had invested a huge sum of money. Numerous litigations ensued between the parties. For settling these litigations and to provide maintenance and means of sustenance to him (Pankaj), the petitioner handed over the disputed cheques under a receipt, wherein the cheque numbers and the amounts are expressly mentio-ned. He relied upon the Judgments in the cases of Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao v. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited [2016 (2) Bankmann 131 (SC)], Surendra Thakral v. State [ 2014 (2) NIJ 167 (Raj.)] and Bishan Dayal v. Dinesh Kumar Singal [2007 (2) NIJ 527 (Del)] and urged that the facts available on record clearly establish that the cheque in question was issued voluntarily by the petitioner under his own signatures and was dishonoured upon presentation. Thus, as per the complainant, this court should not delve into disputed questions of facts so as to quash the complaint at the inception. He contended that it would be premature for the court to make an adjudication about the existence of a legally enforceable debt. He, thus, implored the court to dismiss the miscellaneous petition and direct the trial court to proceed with the complaint expeditiously. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced and have perused the impugned complaint; the documents placed on record and the law cited before me. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and the respondent being father and son are engaged in bitter family disputes since last numerous years. The petitioner has taken a specific plea that he disowned the respondent No. 2 through a notice published in the newspaper way back in the year 2006. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and the respondent being father and son are engaged in bitter family disputes since last numerous years. The petitioner has taken a specific plea that he disowned the respondent No. 2 through a notice published in the newspaper way back in the year 2006. However falling for respondent No. 2’s and his wife’s apologetic pretense and looking to the financial difficulty being faced by them, the petitioner conceded to resumption of the family affairs. As per the findings recorded by the appellate court while deciding the appeal preferred by Smt. Rama vide the judgment dated 13.10.2017, reproduced hereinabove, manifestly, the petitioner paid a huge sum of Rs. 44,79,494/- to the respondent No. 1 Pankaj and his wife Smt. Rama thorugh bank transactions. The petitioner claims to have sent three signed blank cheques including the present one to the respondent for his feigned intention of buying a flat under a scheme floated by the DDA. Copy of disputed cheque No. 079760 is available on record. The same bears a clear printed instruction of the issuing bank that if would be valid only if issued for a sum of Rs. 10 lacs or below. However, the questioned cheque was presented by the respondent after filling the amount of Rs. 3 crores therein. The legally enforceable debt as portrayed in the captioned portion of the complaint (supra) is projected towards providing health care and to enable the respondent to buy commercial and residential properties and towards repayment of investment of Rs. 5 lacs allegedly made by the respondent in the petitioner’s house. Ex facie, the liability which the respondent has claimed as a legally enforceable against the petitioner cannot be quantified. By no stretch of imagination, can the court be satisfied that the petitioner, being a retired Railwayman aged 76 years, would agree to part with a huge sum of Rs. 7 crores 10 lacs (including the two other cheques referred to supra) so as to provide means of sustenance to his own son. The proposition as portrayed in the complaint is contrary to all cannons of human relationship and conduct. 7 crores 10 lacs (including the two other cheques referred to supra) so as to provide means of sustenance to his own son. The proposition as portrayed in the complaint is contrary to all cannons of human relationship and conduct. Furthermore, the amount claimed by the respondent under the so-called agreement is dependent on the consequential settlement of various cases instituted inter se between the parties, but the respondent has nowhere mentioned in the complaint that the cases lodged by him and his wife against his parents (i.e. the petitioner and his wife) stood withdrawn as on the date of filing of the complaint. Be that as it may, the disputed cheque bears a specific printed instruction that it would be treated valid only if issued for a sum of Rs. 10 lacs and under. Therefore, the cheque in question which was filled in and presented for a sum of Rs. 3 crores cannot be treated to be a valid negotiable instrument/cheque as defined under the Negotiable Instruments Act so as to make the account holder liable to honour the same. It is clearly a case, where an unworthy son has, by hook or crook, entangled his old aged father in a totally frivolous and cooked up litigation for satiating his own greed. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner’s counsel in the case of Lalit Kumar Sharma (supra) applies on all fours to the facts of the present case on the aspect of legally enforceable debt. On the other hand, the judgments relied upon by the respondent during the course of his arguments have no application to the present case and are totally distinguishable on facts. In the case of Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao (supra), on which the respondent banks upon, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down that liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would apply only if on the date of issuance of the cheque, liability or debt exists or the amount has become legally recoverable from the account holder. By no stretch of imagination, can the court be satisfied that the amounts claimed by the complainant from the petitioner against the disputed cheque are legally recoverable. 8. By no stretch of imagination, can the court be satisfied that the amounts claimed by the complainant from the petitioner against the disputed cheque are legally recoverable. 8. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, this court, while expressing its anguish on the plight being faced by the petitioner and, abhorrence towards the greedy and vengeful approach of the complainant (respondent herein) is convinced that it is the fittest case warranting exercise of inherent powers conferred upon the High Court by Section 482 CrPC so as to quash the proceedings of the impugned complaint in entirety. Hence, the miscellaneous petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. Consequently, all further proceedings of the complaint Case No. 136/2016 pending before the Special Metropolitan Magistrate (Negotiable Instruments Act) No. 3, Jodhpur Metropolitan are hereby quashed.