CTC PLAZA INTERNATIONAL AND OTHERS Vs. TRENDZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Section 482, Cr. P.C. for quashing the complaint dated 27.4.2009 (Annexure P-1) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the proceedings consequential thereto.

(2.) The petitioner No. 1 is a private limited company while petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are its Directors and responsible for day to day functioning of the business of the company. Vide agreement dated 14.8.2007, the petitioner-company executed a franchise with the complainant-respondent. The petitioner-company gave selling rights to the complainant as per the terms and conditions contained therein. The said agreement was terminated w.e.f.15.10.2008. As per the MOU, the petitioner-company shall pay total outstanding amount within a week from 15.10.2008 (till 22.10.2008) failing which the company shall liable to pay a penalty of L .25,000/- per day over and above the sum payable to the complainant. The outstanding amount was made on 13.12.2008, which was required to be paid 22.10.2008. Thus, the petitioner- company made the payment after a delay of 52 days. On 17.12.2008, it was decided that a sum of L .11,89,308/- shall be paid to the complainant by way of cheque No. 826781 dated 16.11.2008, which shall be encashed towards full and final payment. However, on presentation the said cheque, the same was dishonoured by the petitioner's banker with remarks "Insufficient funds". This information was conveyed to the petitioner-company on 16.12.2009 by the complainant's Bankers' Cheque Returning Memo. A legal notice was sent to the petitioner-company through registered post, UPC and courier. On27.4.2009, a complaint under Section 138 of the Act was initiated by the complainant.

(3.) Precise case of the petitioner-company is that cheque in issue was presented and was dishonoured first time and the petitioner had made the entire payment of L 11,89,308/- by a bank draft/bank transfer on 11.12.2008. This amount is duly credited in the account of the complainant. Subsequently, in February 2009, this cheque was again presented, which was an abuse process of law as the petitioner-company had discharged its liability towards payment of cheque which was earlier dishonoured and the amount had been credited in the account of the complainant by 11.12.2008.