HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.7751 OF 2007 DATE:20-01-2011 BETWEEN Finefare Marketing Private Ltd., Rep. by its Directors G.Srinivas & Bokka Ravinder Reddy & Others …Petitioner AND Surapaneni Trivikrama Rao & another …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.7751 OF 2007 ORDER: This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.163 of 2005 pending on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Miryalaguda registered for the offences punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and Sections 418 and 420 of I.P.C. First petitioner is company and the petitioners 2 and 3 are its Directors. The complaint allegations would go to show that the petitioners induced the complainant-first respondent herein to take the district franchisee of the first petitioner-company by paying an amount of Rs.3 lakhs stating that he would get commission on the entire business that will take place in the entire district with the company. Accordingly, the complainant deposited the said amount. Later the petitioners issued two cheques, dated 21.7.2004 for an amount of Rs.4,797/- and Rs.4,514/- and another cheque for Rs.4,222/-, dated 28.7.2004, all drawn on Allahabad Bank, Secunderabad Branch towards the commission earned by the complainant. When presented, the said cheques were returned with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. Hence, the present complaint has been filed for the offences as aforementioned. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the amount covered by the cheques is not legally enforceable debt and that the notice issued was not served on the petitioners and it was returned and therefore, the conditions for initiation of proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act have not been complied with and hence, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. To attract the provisions under Section 418 and 420 IPC, there was no dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners and in fact, the cheques were issued towards the commission of the complainant. He lastly submits that the petitioners have already deposited the amounts covered by the cheques to the credit of the C.C. and as both the offences are compoundable offences, the same may be compounded. I find no merit in any of the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Once the cheques were issued, a presumption can be drawn that they were issued for due discharge of the debt incurred by the petitioners. Further when the notice addressed to the correct door number of the petitioners was returned, the impugned proceedings cannot be quashed on that ground and the complainant should be given an opportunity to avail the presumption of service of notice under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act. Hence, both the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners are rejected. Since it is represented that the amounts covered by the cheques were already deposited to the credit of the C.C., petitioners are at liberty to file an application for compounding the offences and on filling such application, the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Miryalguda shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed with the above observations. _________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. JANUARY 20, 2011 Tsr.