1 Appln 784-2011 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.784 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.785 OF 2011 GHCL Limited .Applicant V/s. Astral Glass Pvt. Ltd. & ors .Respondents Mr.Kafil Khan with Ms Savita Mundra, Advocate, for the Applicant Mr.S.A.Shaikh, APP, for Respondent No.3  State in Cri.Appln.No.784 of 2011 Mr.Rajesh More, APP, for Respondent No.3  State in Cri.Appln.No.785 of 2011 CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 20TH JULY, 2011 P.C. . Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. These are the applications for leave to file an appeal against acquittal of the respondents for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in respect of dishonour of three cheques for 2 Appln 784-2011 the sum of Rs.1,78,901/-, Rs.1,78,901/- & Rs. 1,67,718/- bearing dates 12th, 13th & 14th April, 2006. The learned Magistrate held that after these cheques were dishonoured along with other cheques in all amounting to Rs. 10,43,000/-, notice was issued on 20th October, 2006. Thereafter, the accused made payment of Rs.25,00,000/- and therefore, according to the learned Magistrate, the amount in respect of dishonoured cheques was paid by the accused within the prescribed period and therefore, liability did not arise. He further held that there was an Agreement dated 3rd November, 2006 whereby new schedule of payment was agreed to and therefore, there was no question of the accused being liable to pay the amounts under the cheque which had been already issued. 3. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that payment of Rs.25,00,000/- was made towards the outstanding of Rs. 3 Appln 784-2011 1,10,00,000/- which had been admitted by the defence witnesses. The cheques in question had been given towards supplies made after those outstandings were ascertained and therefore, the cheques were for supplies independent of payment of Rs.25,00,000/- which was towards the dues of Rs.1,10,00,000/-. 4. Fortunately the applicant has annexed all the relevant documents with the applications. Minutes of Meeting dated 3rd November, 2006 which have been marked as "Exhibit 20" in the trial Court show that in clause ten the Complainant requested that the Case 138 now be withdrawn . To this, the response of the applicant-Company was that the letter dated 20th October, 2006 sent by them was internal to GHCL from their legal department and that GHCL confirmed that if payment schedule is maintained, the matter will not be pursued. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that till then the cases 4 Appln 784-2011 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act had not at all been filed. Therefore, there is no question of not persuing the present cases. Whether cases were filed or not is not relevant. What is material is there is reference to the letter dated 20 th October, 2006, which is the notice of demand in respect of dishonoured cheques. After the Complainant agreed not to pursue the matter further, if the payment schedule was adhered to, there was no question of filing a complaint for dishonour of those cheques. 5. In view of this, view taken by the learned Magistrate cannot be faulted for holding that a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- paid covered Rs.10,43,000/- towards the amount of dishonoured cheques, as also that there was no justification or cause of action for filing the complaint, when the parties had agreed to a fresh schedule of repayment. View taken is neither improbable nor perverse. Leave 5 Appln 784-2011 refused. Appeal dismissed. 6. Criminal Applications stand disposed of. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)