ANAND AGROS LIMITED Vs. G SRINIVAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in Calender Case No. 598 of 2008 registered for offence punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881 on the file of the II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, on the following grounds : In connection with business affairs under job work agreement, the petitioner/accused issued two cheques; one for Rs. 2.00 lakhs and another for Rs. 1.00 lakh drawn on Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited, Kothapet Branch, Ranga Reddy District in favour of the 1st respondent/complainant. After expiry of the job work agreement with the respondent, the petitioner entered into job work agreement with a third party. The petitioner instructed the concerned bank to stop payment of those cheques under intimation to the respondent No.1. Subsequently, a notice dated 11.8.2006 was issued by the 1st respondent to the petitioner and the petitioner gave reply on 24.8.2006. After the receipt of the notice, the petitioner approached the learned II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad and filed O.P.No. 1428 of 2006 under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 and obtained interim injunction through order dt.15.11.2006, preventing the 1st respondent from proceeding with the presentation of the cheques for encashing them before the concerned bank. The learned II Additional Chief Judge granted interim injunction for a period of three months subject to the condition that the dispute should be referred to an Arbitrator. On 28.8.2007 the said O.P. was allowed. On 27.9.2006, the 1st respondent filed a private complaint before the learned II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which therefore is not tenable.

(2.) IT is the contention of learned Counsel for the first respondent that whereas the complaint was filed against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 N.I. Act on 27.9.2006 as a counterblast the O.P. was filed and the interim injunction was obtained on 15-11-2006 on the file of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and when there is a statutory provision to take the criminal action the Civil Court order will not have the effect of nullifying the authority of the Criminal Court to prosecute the Criminal case.

(3.) THEREFORE, section 138 of the N.I. Act clearly contemplates and mandates that when a cheque was dishonoured before concerned forum, the offence punishable there under was complete unless the obligations incorporated in the proviso there under were complied with. In fact, as per the record all those formalities were completed in order to attract the proviso and the offence. It is also categorical that subsequent to the filing of the complaint, the O.P. was filed and the interim injunction to prevent the first respondent from presenting the cheques and encashing them as noted supra was obtained which makes it very clear that the same was done as a counterblast to the complaint filed which therefore is to be viewed very seriously.