1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4264 OF 2010 Skymax Laboratories Ltd. And Anr. ...Applicants v/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.R.Satyanarayan i/by Shri R.G.Sharma, advs. For the Applicants. Mr.V.B.Konde, APP For the Respondent/State. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : MARCH 7, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard. This application is filed by the original accused nos.1 and 2 to quash the proceeding in the case no.6146/SS/2009 pending before 44th Court Andheri under Sections 138, 141 & 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2 As per the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent no.2, accused no.1 is the company, accused no.2 is the director and authorised signatory, accused no.3 is the Chief Executive Officer of the said company. As per the instructions given by the accused no.3, accused no.2 for and on behalf of the Company, placed an order with the complainant on 11.1.2007 by purchase order no.RM/042/06-07 to supply certain pharmaceutical products to Hema Laboratories. Accordingly, 2 goods were supplied and bill was raised. On 6.2.2009 the accused no.2 in discharge of the part liability issued two cheques of Rs.1 lac and Rs. 14,622/-. Both these cheques were dishonoured in spite of notice given by the complainant payment was not made by the accused persons. 3 The learned counsel for the applicants/accused contended that after the process was issued in the above referred case, on 9.3.2010 complainant had issued a notice making claim of the amounts of Rs. 5,45,586/- and Rs.50,000/- on account of two other cheques of different dates, who were allegedly dishonoured. According to him, in that notice also it is stated that order was placed on 11.1.2007 by purchase order no. RM/042/06-07. He contends that two different notices about different claims based on the same order were issued and, therefore, case of the complainant appears to be false and liable to be quashed. 4 Copy of the original order dated 11.1.2007 is not before this Court, therefore, it is not possible to see how the orders were placed by that Purchase Order. It is possible that by the same purchase order, orders for purchase of different goods could be given and, therefore, amounts involved might be different. In any case, complaint filed on the basis of notice dated 28.2.2009 and the notice dated 9.3.2010 speak about different cheques. Therefore, at this stage, it can not be said that case is 3 false. All these points can be raised by the accused during the trial of the case. Therefore, the application stands dismissed. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)