ROHIT PARUSHRAM ALIAS ROHIT GIR Vs. DHIRAJ RAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, (for short 'the Act') against the petitioners in C.C.No.350 of 2004 alleging that in pursuance of a compromise entered between him and the petitioners 1 to 3 before the Court, petitioners owed him Rs. 15,30,000/- and that they paid cash of Rs.2,00,000/- on 29.1.2004, and had issued cheques bearing No.104684, dated 9.3.2003 for Rs.1,30,000/- Nos.104685 and 104686 dated 15.3.2003 for Rs.6,00,000/- each, and when he presented those three cheques for payment, they were returned with an endorsement of "INSUFFICIENT FUNDS", and that in spite of his issuing a notice of dishonour with a demand for payment, petitioner failed to make the payment. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in the said C.C. No.350 of 2004.

(2.) The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that since the amount due and payable to the first respondent as per the compromise was already paid, petitioners cannot be said to have committed the offence under Section 138 of the Act and contends that in any event since the dishonoured cheques were drawn for and on behalf of a propriety firm, which is not made an accused, proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed. He placed a strong reliance on Praveenkumar and Industry v. Balaji Onion Company and others, 2005 (1) ALD (Crl.) 803 (A.P.), 5. Sultan and Co., Hyderabad and another v. Cement Corporation of India Ltd., Hyderabad and another, 2005 (1) ALD (Crl.) 647 (A.P.) and Dr. V.Balaraju v. Pashak Feeds (P) Ltd., R.R. District and another, 2005 (1) ALD (Crl.) 651 (A.P.), and contended that petitioners 2 and 3 in any event cannot be made liable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

(3.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the first respondent is that since petitioners, who admittedly have to pay Rs.15,30,000/- had paid only Rs.2,00,000/- on 29.1.2004 and since the allegation in this petition is that they paid the amount long prior to the date of compromise, question of quashing the proceedings against the petitioners does not arise, more so, because petitioners 2 and 3 are also parties to the compromise before the Court and since first petitioner issued cheques on behalf of all the three petitioners, petitioners 2 and 3 are also liable under Section 138 of the Act.