2005 (7) TMI 696

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....686, dated 15-03-2003 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 proprietary firm, which is....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at this Court while deciding a petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C., would not go into the defence of the accused, but would only consider the allegations in the complaint, to find out if they make out the offence alleged or not. Since the allegations in the complaint disclose the necessary ingredients for an offence under Section 138 of the Act, question of quashing the proceedings on the ground that they were not issued towards discharge of a liability does not arise. I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent that since petitioners 2 and 3 admitted their liability before the Court at the time of compromise and since the bounced cheques were issued by first petitioner on behalf of the petition....