IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc.50966-M of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : DECEMBER 1, 2008 M/S CYCLOBELL INDUSTRIES ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS M/S SINGAL IRON TRADERS .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. DK Bhatti, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. RS Bajaj, Advocate, for respondent. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) The petitioner is an accused in the proceedings initiated by the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on dishonour of the cheque, legal notice was served to the petitioner-firm. The petitioner-firm contacted the respondent-complainant. There was some dispute as the petitioner contended that defective material was supplied. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent was made to realize that no amount was due towards the petitioner-firm and, therefore, the dishonoured cheque was destroyed in the presence of respectables, who were accompanying the partner of the petitioner-firm. In view of this fact, the proceedings cannot be allowed to Criminal Misc.50966-M of 2007 2 continue as it would be an abuse of process of court. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has pointed out that the trial court has already allowed the application of the respondent for leading secondary evidence. I have considered the issues involved. Whether legal liability existed; whether the goods supplied were defective or not and whether the cheque was destroyed with the concurrence of the parties, as pleaded by the petitioner; are all disputed questions of fact and cannot be adjudicated in these proceedings under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. It would be open to the petitioner to address the trial court on the issue of maintainability of the complaint on the basis of photo copy of the cheque. December 1, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE