HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4120 OF 2008 DATED.29-09-2011 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and A-2 (For short, ‘A-1 and A-2’) under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in Calender Case No.32 of 2008, pending on the file of the Court of XVIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 2. Whereas the Petitioners are A-1 and A-2, A-1 is the Company represented by its Managing Director A-2 and the Respondent No. 2 is the Complainant in the Calender Case. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the Calender Case. 3. The complainant was filed on the ground that the Accused Company i.e. M/s. Gold Chick Hatcheries and Foods Limited fell due large amounts to the Complainant in connection with poultry Farm Business and in that regard, A-2 being the Managing Director of A-1 Company issued a cheque for Rs.90,000/- to the Complainant and when the Complainant presented it through their Banker State Bank of Hyderabad, Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund Branch, Hyderabad it was dishonoured on the ground that there were “insufficient funds” in the corresponding account of the Accused before the concerned forum and it was returned along with a check return memo dated 14-06- 2005. Thereafter, the complaint got issued legal notices dated 20-06- 2005 to A-1 and A-2 by Registered Post with Acknowledgement due demanding to pay him the amount covered by the cheque within 15 days from the date of receipt of the legal notice and the notice sent to A-1 was served upon him, whereas the notice sent to A-2 was returned with an endorsement “Addressee not claimed it for 7 days hence returned to sender”. Further, A-2 being the Managing Director of A-1 Company deliberately and intentionally refused to receive the legal notice. Consequently, the complaint was filed to punish the Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 138 read with Section 142 of the N.I. Act, 1881 (For short, ‘The Act’). 4. It is the contention of learned counsel for the Accused that A-1 received the notice on 01-07-2005 and had taken demand draft on 13-07-2005 and sent the same along with a reply to the Complainant on 14-07-2005 and it was encashed on 20-07- 2005, whereas para No.5 of the Complaint reflects that the amount was not paid. In support of his contention, he has filed relevant documents. Further he contends that no offence was committed by the Accused and further he has also made a representation that the matter has been under the process of settlement and hence the proceedings before the trial Court may be quashed. 5. On the other hand, it is the contention of learned counsel for the Complainant that the payment of the amount claimed by the Accused is nothing but false and further in any case, in fact, there was dishonour of the cheque in respect of which there is sufficient documentary evidence to prosecute the Accused for the alleged offence. It is also his contention that if any amount was paid by the Accused, it was not in respect of the amount in question and when the trial Court is about to post the matter for trial, the present petition has been filed for the purpose of dragging the matter and hence there are no merits in the petition. 6. There is record to the effect that the cheque issued by the Accused earlier was sent by the Complainant to the Bank and it was dishonoured. Further, there is a question as to whether the amount was paid as claimed by the Accused subsequent to the issuance of the notice by the Complainant. Even supposing that subsequently the amount was paid, it is to be ascertained as to whether the amount was only paid in respect of the transaction in question and not for a different transaction. Further, it is also to be considered as to whether there is any possibility of compromising the matter. Therefore, for these reasons, it is not possible to quash the proceedings, at this stage, and hence the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the XVIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad is directed to take necessary steps with reference to the contentions advanced by the parties including the question of compromise in the matter and also with reference to the question of conducting necessary trial of the case. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated:29-09-2011. Dsh. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4120 OF 2008 September, 29, 2011 DSH