Crl. Misc. No.M-37771 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-37771 of 2010 Date of Decision: 04.05.2011 M/s Balaji Sales Corporation & ors. ....Petitioners Versus Diwan Brothers & another ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. F.A. Banisrael, Advocate for the petitioners. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of complaint case dated 14.07.2009 vide C.C. No.1347/2009 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act titled as “M/s Dewan Brothers vs. M/s Balaji Sales Corporation & others” and subsequent proceedings thereof pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, Haryana. On 22.12.2010, the following order was passed ; “ Petitioners have been summoned in proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for not discharging their liability to return the sum of Rs.17,34,000/- received by them to supply the scrap as per the agreement dated 15.01.2009. While receiving the said money, a post dated cheque had been given by the petitioners to the complainant-respondents. When the terms of the contract did not materialize the cheque was Crl. Misc. No.M-37771 of 2010 2 presented but it was dishonoured. I am not satisfied with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in these circumstances, the subject matter of the complaint i.e., the cheque had been issued merely as a security. Even the agreement indicates that the cheque was in the shape of “security deposit”, as such the judgments cited by the counsel for the petitioners are not applicable. Since the petitioners have admittedly not supplied the scrap material against the money already received by them, on asking of the Court, counsel for the petitioners seeks time to confirm from his clients whether they are ready to return the amount which is the subject matter of the cheque without prejudice to his other rights. Adjourned to 14.01.2011.” It is obvious from the above that the matter was adjourned only to find out if the petitioners were ready and willing to return the amount which was the subject matter of the cheque without prejudice to his other rights. Today, learned counsel for the petitioners states that he has instructions to state that the petitioners are not ready and willing to make the payment towards the said cheque. Since, the Court vide its order dated 22.12.2010 had decided not is issue notice of motion on merits and the same was adjourned only for the purpose of exploring the possibility of a settlement, the same too does not appear to be possible in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Dismissed accordingly. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 04.05.2011 JUDGE gurpreet