Compact Disc India Ltd. and Others vs Contour Advertising (P.) Ltd.

V.S. Aggarwal, J.—By this common judgment Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 4184-M of 1995 and 3953-M of 1995 can be disposed of together as the facts involved in both the petitions are identical.

Contour Advertising Pvt. Ltd. filed a criminal complaint against the petitioners u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It was alleged that the complainant is a private limited company. Petitioner No. 1 is a public limited company having its registered office at Chandigarh. The complainant is carrying on the business of advertising and publicity. It provides services in areas such as marketing consultancy and product development, etc. Suresh Kumar, petitioner No. 2, informed the complainant that he is the managing director and is authorised to enter into an agreement with the complainant to carry on the work on behalf of petitioner No. 1. Certain orders were placed. The complainant carried out the work. The complainant raised various bills for the work done on behalf of the petitioners. Some amount was paid. A balance amount of Rs. 8,35,507.35 was due besides the interest. The petitioners had agreed to clear the bills. Certain cheques drawn on Vijaya Bank, Gurgaon, were issued. The said cheques were dishonoured on presentation. The necessary notices were issued. The payment was not made. Alleging further that the petitioners are responsible for the conduct of the business of the company, the complaint was filed.

The learned Judicial Magistrate summoned the petitioners as accused. By virtue of the present petition filed u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is prayed that the complaint and the subsequent proceedings be quashed because the amount of cheques has already been paid and in any case the cheques had been returned with the remarks that "payment had been stopped by the drawer". In the reply filed, the petition has been opposed.

A similar complaint was filed by the complainant on almost identical facts against Compact Disc India Ltd. and other petitioners for dishonouring of other cheques. The facts need not be repeated because basically they are identical. As a result of the said complaint, Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3953-M of 1995 has been filed.

As regards the plea that no case is made out u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, at this stage, the learned Magistrate has to see the complaint and the evidence produced. Perusal of the same indicated a prima facie case. The defence of the petitioners at this stage will not be looked into particularly when it involves facts. This court would only quash proceedings if it is shown that the proceedings are an abuse of the process of the court or the order is necessary to give effect to any other order or to secure the ends of justice. At this stage, there is nothing to indicate that the said ingredients are satisfied that the court would like to invoke its inherent powers. The facts, so alleged can well be gone into by the trial court during the course of trial. No opinion is being expressed. On this ground, the petitioners at this stage cannot succeed.

The mainstay of the argument advanced was that since the payment has been made, the proceedings as such should be quashed. The contention had been opposed. It goes without saying that once an offence has been committed and is a complete offence, merely making the payment will not put an end to the same. It may affect the gravity of the said offence. There is no ground, thus, to quash the proceedings.

For these reasons, the petitions being without merit must fail and are dismissed.