1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.251 OF 2008 Showman International .... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents Mr. Prasad Das i/by M/s Goenka Law Associates for petitioner Mr. A.A. Mane, APP for State. Ms. Anvee Mehta a/w Ms. Sanchari Nandi i/by Yusufs & Associates for respondent NO.2. Coram : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. Date : 5th January, 2009 P.C. 1. The present petition is filed by the accused for quashing Criminal Case No.713/SS/06 registered under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act pending before the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Small Causes Court, Mumbai. Respondent no.2 is the original complainant. 2. Respondent No.2 had filed two complaints being case Nos.2075/SS/04 and 5261/SS/05 in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate at 23rd Court Esplanade Mumbai under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. When the trial in the two proceedings was at the stage of conclusion, consent terms came to be filed by the parties. Under the consent terms, the petitioner gave 2 26 cheques of varying dates starting from 25th March 2006 to 15th November 2007, 12 out of which were in the sum of Rs.25,000/- and remaining in the sum of Rs.50,000/-. It was agreed by the petitioner under the consent terms that the cheques will be cleared on their respective dates. After taking the consent terms on record, the two proceedings came to be withdrawn by the respondent No.2. However, when the very first cheque dated 25th March,2006 was presented for payment, the same was dishonoured. Therefore, as provided under the consent terms, respondent No.2 presented for encashment four cheques each in the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- given by way of security. These cheques also were not honoured and consequently present proceedings i.e. Case No.713/SS/06 came to be filed by respondent No.2. The facts of the liability alleged in the two earlier proceedings, filing of the consent terms, dishonour of the first cheque dated 25th March 2006 etc. are not disputed by the petitioner. He, however, contends that the four cheques were given only by way of security to respondent no. 2 and ought not to have been presented for encashment. He also submitted that after the first cheque dated 25th March 2006 was dishonoured, respondent no.2 ought to have informed the petitioner about the dishonour, so that some arrangements could have been made. 3 3. Perusal of the consent terms makes it clear that the four cheques given by the applicant were by way of security towards the payment under 26 cheques given by way of settlement. Respondent No.1 cannot be faulted with for presenting the four cheques for encashment on dishonour of the first of 26 cheques. In the circumstances, the proceedings cannot be quashed. The petitioner has to undergo the trial and establish his defence whatever, if any. The petition is rejected. 4. Mr.Das, learned counsel makes an oral application for grant of stay of the proceedings before the trial Court. By the order dated 11th February 2008 the trial proceedings had been stayed. However, by the subsequent order dated 11th September 2008, the Court had refused to extend the stay. The reason for refusal was the conduct of the petitioner in annexing incomplete copy of the consent terms filed before the Magistrate's Court. In the xerox copy annexed the crucial portion of the consent terms had been omitted. By the same order, the petitioner was asked to explain his conduct in annexing an incomplete copy to the application. Accordingly, additional affidavit dated 20th September 2008 came to be filed by the petitioner. All that has 4 been stated in the affidavit is that the suppression was not intentional. In view of this conduct and also in view of the fact that the present petition has been rejected, the request for stay is rejected. (SMT.R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J)