Calcutta Sanitary Wares and Another vs C.T. Jacob

Thulasidas, J.—These petitions filed u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, are for quashing the complaints and related proceedings in C. C. No. 22 of 1990 and C. C. No. 23 of 1990 pending against the petitioners before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate''s Court, Ernakulam. The complaints were filed u/s 138 of the Act 66 of 1988 in respect of two cheques which the second petitioner had issued as a partner of the first petitioner-firm, in favour of the respondent. The cheques were dishonoured upon presentation. As required, notices were issued to the petitioners. A reply was sent by the second petitioner but the payment was not made. The complaints were, therefore, laid as warranted by the provisions of the above Act.

The allegations in the complaints, in my view, do make out a prima facie case against the petitioners. Before filing the complaints, the respondent had taken care to abide by the relevant legal provisions. Indeed, it is not the case of the petitioners that no amount is due to the respondent. The issuance of cheques and their dishonour, followed by notices of demand and failure to pay are not matters which had been challenged. That the payment was countermanded by a stop memo is of no consequence. That hardly affects the right of the respondent to initiate proceedings under the Act. It has the same effect as closing the account as far as he is concerned. The object of the provision cannot be allowed to be defeated by such ingenuous action.

I think, the prayer to quash the complaints and related proceedings is misconceived. Prima facie, there is a case against the petitioners as alleged. This court cannot interfere at this stage. Criminal miscellaneous cases are dismissed.