- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.202 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO.202 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO.202 OF 2009 M/s.Yamuna Glass Works Ltd. & Anr. ...Petitioners vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.Niranjan Pandit with Ms Nalini Singh i/b Joy Legal Consultans for the petitioners Mr. R.M.Nakhawa A.P.P. for State Mr.S.P.Bharati for respondent no.1 CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : APRIL 23,2009 : APRIL 23,2009 : APRIL 23,2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners have been arraigned as accused in the complaint filed by the second respondent for an offence punishable under section 138 r/w section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881. The cheque subject matter of the complaint is dated 15th June 2001 in the sum of Rs.10 lac. The said cheque was dishonoured in July 2001. Notice of demand was issued on 7th July 2001 and complaint was filed on 23rd August 2001. A prayer for quashing is made on the ground that the payment in the sum of Rs.30,00,000/- has been subsequently made on behalf of the petitioners to the second respondent and therefore the second respondent cannot prosecute the complaint. 2. Even according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the first payment of Rs.10,00,000/- out of the said amount of Rs.30,00,000/- was made on 26th November 2001 and two other - 2 - payments have been made subsequent thereto. Admittedly all payments have been allegedly made after filing the complaint. Thus, the payments have been made after the complaint was filed by the second respondent. Therefore, the payments made subsequent to filing of complaint is no ground to quash the complaint. It is not at all the case of the petitioner that the second respondent has agreed to compound the offence. The second respondent cannot be forced to compound the offence. The payment of substantial amount subsequently made will be certainly a mitigating factor if at all the court passes the order of conviction. 3. Hence, no case is made out for quashing the complaint. Petition is rejected. 4. Time of six weeks is granted to the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate and to apply for cancellation of warrants. To enable the petitioners to apply and to apply for cancellation of warrants, the same shall not be executed for a period of eight weeks from today. 5. All contentions of the parties in the pending complaint are expressly kept open. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE