LAFARGE AGGREGATES CONCRETE Vs. SBC INFRA PROJECTS INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner ' complainant under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the order dtd. 31/1/2013 passed in Crl.R.P. No.205 of 2012 by the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad, confirming the order dtd. 6/6/2012 passed in CC No.1233 of 2011 by the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

(2.) The petitioner submitted that he was a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the business of manufacture and supply of ready mix concrete. On being approached by A2 and A3, requesting for supply of ready mix concrete, he supplied concrete to the accused for an amount of Rs.10,44,300.00. The accused in furtherance of the said due amount issued a cheque dtd. 20/8/2009 for a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs, but the same was dishonoured. The petitioner filed a complaint under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'NI Act') on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate vide CC No.519 of 2010. Subsequent to filing of the said complaint, the accused approached him for settlement and entered into a settlement agreement dtd. 5/1/2011. In view of the said settlement, the accused paid a sum of Rs.5,15,000.00 by way of demand draft dtd. 5/1/2011. In furtherance of the said settlement dtd. 5/1/2011, the accused issued two cheques dtd. 12/2/2011 and 20/2/2011 for the remaining outstanding amount of Rs.5,44,300.00. When the said two cheques were deposited for realization the same were dishonoured for the reason 'Funds Insufficient'. The petitioner approached the Court of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and filed a complaint under Ss. 138 and 142 of NI Act and the same was numbered as CC No.1233 of 2011. While the matter was pending before the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 6/6/2012 the Court dismissed the complaint in terms of Sec. 204 (4) of Cr.P.C. for the reason that there was no representation for the complainant, the complainant was absent and the process was also not paid. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a revision petition under Sec. 397 Cr.P.C. The said revision petition was dismissed by the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad vide Crl.R.P. No.205 of 2012. Challenging the same, he filed the present quash petition.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.