G RAVI KUMAR Vs. S RAVINDRANATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed under S. 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 369/84 on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad initiated against the petitioner herein by the 1st respondent.

(2.) The facts in brief, are as follows : The petitioner herein issued a cheque bearing No. 432518, dated 9-2-1994 in favour of the 1st respondent for Rs. 95,000.00 on State Bank of India, Mudford Branch, Secunderabad. The 1st respondent through his, banker, Canara Bank, M.G. Road Branch, Secunderabad presented the cheque for encashment on 9-2-1994 and the same was returned with the endorsement "Funds insufficient" and the same was intimated by the banker on 10-2-94. The 1st respondent once again presented the cheque for encashment on 12-3-1994, but the same was returned once again with endorsement "Funds insufficient" and the same was received by the bank of the 1st respondent on 15-3-94. Thereupon, the notice, dated 22-3-1994 was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to pay Rs. 95,000.00 covered by the said cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, but the said notice was returned by the postal authorities with an endorsement "party continuously absent for 7 days. Hence returned to sender on 5-4-94. "The 1st respondent once again sent the said notice on 18-4-1994 to the petitioner, but the same was returned. Once again, the 1st respondent sent another notice, dated 25-4-94 telegraphically and also under Certificate of posting to the petitioner intimating about the dishonour of the cheque and calling upon him to pay the amount of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. The petitioner while acknowledging the receipt of the said notice, dated : 25-4-1994, issued a reply notice, dated 4-5-94 through his advocate. As the petitioner failed to pay the amount due under the cheque in spite of the said notice, the 1st respondent filed the complaint against the petitioner on 31-5-94 for the offence under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter called as the Act). The learned Magistrate took the case on file as C.C. No. 369/94. The petitioner has come up with this application to quash the said proceedings initiated against him.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel on both sides.