ORDER : Petitioners are aggrieved by the summons issued to them by the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in C.C. No.20117/2016 (P.C.R. No.8191/2016). 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the records. 3. The respondent (hereinafter referred to as “complainant”) filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioners and accused No.1 alleging that the cheque for Rs.1,10,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Ten Lakh only) issued by accused No.1 was dishonored for “account closed”. In the complaint it was alleged that the said cheque was issued by accused No.1 for and on behalf of the petitioners namely accused Nos.2 to 6. Necessary averments in this regard find a place in para 4 of the complaint which reads as under: “The Complainant submits that the Accused No.1 had prepared a draft agreement of sale and it was between the Complainant and the Accused No.1 only. But, on the day of Registration of the Agreement of sale at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Vijayanagara, Bengaluru 560040, he brought in Five other names deleting his name stating that they are assignees and they have financial transactions with him at M/s. Pluto Craft Financial Solutions and therefore for adjustment of their financial transactions, the Accused No.1 getting the agreement of sale in their names and the Sale deed will be between the Complainant and the Accused No.1. However, the advance amount of Rupees One Crore Ten Lakhs is being paid immediately after registration of Agreement of sale is over. Immediately after registration is over there was some confusion between the Accused No.1 and the persons entered into agreement of sale. When the Complainant demanded the advance amount of Rupees One Crore Ten lakhs the Accused No.1 started telling that there is some confusion between them about who has to pay and how much has to pay etc. And to set right their confusion a agreement of sale requires a Rectification deed and therefore, let us have Rectification Deed at the earliest and the advance amount will be paid on the day of Rectification deed without fail. Since the Agreement of Sale was registered it was inevitable for the complainant to agree for Rectification Deed thinking, whether Accused No.1 gives the money or his assignees whose names appeared in the agreement of sale makes no difference. Since the Agreement of Sale was registered it was inevitable for the complainant to agree for Rectification Deed thinking, whether Accused No.1 gives the money or his assignees whose names appeared in the agreement of sale makes no difference. The Accused No.1 assured and promised to give Demand Draft/Bankers Cheque on the day of Rectification Deed.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the cheque in question was issued by accused No.1. Accused No.1 was not a party either to the original agreement of sale dated 19.08.2015 or the subsequent rectification deed dated 01.10.2015. Accused No.1 has nothing to do with the aforesaid agreement of sale. In view of the breach committed by the respondent, petitioners have already instituted a suit for specific enforcement of the said agreement and the said suit in O.S. No.7297/2016 is pending before the Civil Court. After filing the said suit respondent/complainant has filed the above complaint solely with the intent to extract money from the petitioners. The complaint does not contain any averments making out the offence by the petitioners under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence the prosecution of the petitioner is illegal and an abuse of the process of Court and therefore is liable to be quashed in exercise of the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 5. Refuting the submission, learned counsel for respondent/complainant submits that the complaint was filed before the presentation of the suit. However, he admits that the complaint was filed after receipt of the notice issued by the petitioners. Further he submits that clear averments are made in the complaint to the effect that the cheque in question was issued by accused No.1 for and on behalf of the petitioners in respect of the agreement of sale entered into by the petitioners and hence the petitioners are equally liable for the prosecution of the dishonor of the said cheque. 6. Considered the submission and perused the records. A reading of the agreement of sale dated 19.08.2015 reveals that the said agreement is entered into by the petitioners and the respondent. Under the said agreement petitioners have agreed to purchase the schedule properties for a total consideration of Rs.1,80,00,000/(Rupees One Crore Eighty Lakh only) and have paid a sum of Rs.1,10,00,000/(Rupees One Crore Ten Lakh only) by way of different cheques which has been duly acknowledged by the respondent. Under the said agreement petitioners have agreed to purchase the schedule properties for a total consideration of Rs.1,80,00,000/(Rupees One Crore Eighty Lakh only) and have paid a sum of Rs.1,10,00,000/(Rupees One Crore Ten Lakh only) by way of different cheques which has been duly acknowledged by the respondent. Records discloses that in respect of the said transaction a rectification deed was executed on 01.10.2015. Even to this rectification deed, only the petitioners and second respondent are parties. Accused No.1 is nowhere in picture in the entire sale transaction except that he is seen to have signed both these documents as a witness. It is also a matter of record that in respect of the said agreement petitioners have filed a suit in O.S. No.7297/2016 for specific performance. These documents therefore clearly establish that the transaction for the purchase of the properties is only between the petitioners and the respondent namely the complainant. In the said circumstances, the contention of the respondent that the cheque in question was issued by the accused No.1 for and on behalf of the petitioners cannot be accepted. The dishonored cheque stands for Rs.1,10,00,000/(Rupees One Crore Ten Lakh only). The consideration due under the said agreement is only Rs.70,00,000/(Rupees Seventy Lakh only). If in fact accused No.1 issued the said cheque for and on behalf of the petitioners herein the respondent would have taken necessary documents in that regard. The cheque in question in my opinion cannot be related to the sale transaction in question. Under the said circumstances, merely on the basis of the statement made by the complainant that the said cheque was issued for and on behalf of the petitioners, the petitioners herein cannot be prosecuted for the dishonour of the cheque drawn by accused No.1. 7. Under the said circumstances, in the absence of any material to show that the petitioners herein are anyway related to the dishonoured cheque, prosecution of the petitioners, in my view, is wholly illegal and cannot be sustained. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The prosecution instituted against the petitioners in C.C. No.20117/2016 (P.C.R. No.8191/2016) by the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, is quashed.