Judgment:

Leave granted.

(1) Appellants before us are aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 7.6.2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad whereby and whereunder a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 praying for quashing the complaint proceedings under Section 138 and Section 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act before the IV Additional Munsif Magistrate,Guntur taking cognizance against them under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was dismissed.

(2) Thefactual matrix involved herein is not in dispute.

(3) Appellants had entered into some business transactions in regard to supply of certain materials with Respondent No.1. Appellant No.2 as a proprietor of appellant No.1 issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. 2 lacs in favour of the complainant-respondent on or about 22.6.2003. Appellants contend that the said cheque was issued by way of security.

(4) The said cheque was presented in the bank on 23.6.2003. It was returned un-paid by the banker of the appellants on the ground of insufficient funds.

(5) Another notice was sent for service on the proprietor of S.L. Structures and Engineers on or about 8.7.2003. However, admittedly, the said notice was not served upon the appellants.

(6) The said cheque was again presented before the bank on 30.8.2003, and was again dishonoured.

(7) Respondents served another notice upon the appellant No.2 describing him as a proprietor of S.L. Structures and Engineers and calling upon him to pay the said amount of Rs. 2 lacs within 15 days from the date of receipt thereof.

(8) However, in response thereto the appellants advocate by a letter dated 19.9.2003 pointed out that in stead and place of S.L.Structures and Engineers, the notice should have been sent to S.L.Constructions. It was stated thus:

"That instead of sending the notice to S.L. constructions you send the notice to my client Shri K.P.Raju Proprietor of S.L.Structures and Engineers, Nagpur which is illegal. That by issuing such wrong and illegal notice your client lower down the status of my client in the eyes of general people and bankers and for which my client instructed me to take the appropriate action either Civil or Criminal in the Court of Law against your client."

(9) It is in the aforementioned situation, the respondents presented the cheque for the third time before the bank on 11.12.2003 which having been dishonoured, another notice was sent and served on 17.12.2003. The cheque was dishonoured for the third time also.

(10) Indisputably, as no payment was received from the appellant pursuant to the said notice, a complaint petition was filed on 23.1.2004. Upon receipt of summons, appellants moved the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which, as noticed hereinbefore, by reason of the impugned judgment has been dismissed.

(11) Mrs.Desai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants raised the following contentions before us in support of this appeal;

(i) Having regard to the provisions contained in Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and in particular the proviso appended thereto, the cheque could not have been presented for the third time;

(ii) The complainant respondent having suppressed the fact of issuance of earlier notices, no order taking cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act should have been passed;

(iii) The High Court failed to take into consideration that the cheque having been deposited after three months and three notices having been issued one after the other, no cause of action survived, as earlier, two notices for presenting the cheque before the banker had been issued which had already been dishonoured.

(12) Strong reliance has been placed by Mrs. Desai in this behalf on Sadanand Bhadran Vs. Madhavan Sunil Kumar -1998 6 SCC 514, Prem Chand Vijay Kumar Vs. Yashpal Singh and Anr.-2005 4 SCC