The Court emphasized that the issuance of cheques under compelling circumstances should be considered during the trial, not at the stage of quashing the proceedings.

H.P. Sandesh, J.

I have heard the arguments of the petitioner's counsel and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner is the resident of Namakkal Town in Tamil Nadu. The son-in law of the petitioner namely, Murugesan was the Managing Director of M/s. Poorani Feeds Pvt. Ltd., which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and inter alia engaged in the business of manufacture of Poultry/cattle feeds. The company during the course of its business appears to have purchased raw materials from various suppliers across India, including the respondent herein.

3. Due to the sudden outbreak of Bird Flue in India during early 2006, the business of the company was greatly affected. As a result, the company has sustained huge loss and started to default in payment to the suppliers who had supplied raw materials to the Company on credit basis. The son-in-law of this petitioner who was the Managing Director of the Company has committed suicide on 5/3/2006.

4. After the death of the son-in-law, the present respondent and other creditors insisted this petitioner to make payment and there was no any connection with company or its business transactions, with this petitioner. He was forced to issue the cheques to the extent of 122 postdated cheques. It is contended that the cheques were not issued towards discharge of debt or liability, but, were taken by way of coercion and misrepresentation. The petitioner got issued a legal notice on 26/4/2006 to the respondent calling upon him to issue cheques and on the very same day, he also issued 'Stop Payment' instruction to his Bank explaining the circumstances.

5. The petitioner has also filed a suit in O.S. No.630/2006 seeking the declaration to declare that the cheques which were issued are null and void, as there is no relationship between the parties as creditor and debtor and the suit was decreed.

6. During the pendency of the said suit and despite being aware of all the facts, the respondent has presented the cheuqes and the same was returned with an endorsement 'Payment Stopped by the Drawer'. The respondent has issued a legal notice dated 3/11/2006 and thereafter, filed a complaint before the judicial Magistrate, I Class, Kushtigi. During the pendency of the criminal suit, the suit was decreed and being aggrieved by the very filing of the complaint and also by the order of the learned Magistrate in taking cognizance of the offence without any alternative or efficacious remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

7. The main grounds urged by the petitioner in the petition that in view of the decree passed by the Civil Court in O.S.No.630/2006 declaring the cheques that are the subject matter of complaint in C.C.No.61/2007 as null and void and the consequential injunctive order passed against the respondent from proceeding to recover the amount under the cheques. The complaint is not maintainable. The said question as to validity of the instrument has already examined and adjudicated by the Civil Court, which has declared the cheques in question to be non-est in O.S.No.260/2006. Under these circumstances, there is no necessity on any trial in CC No.61/2007 as it would result declaration of proceedings and complaint is liable to be set aside. This Court has to quash the proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The counsel appearing for the petitioner in his argument reiterated the grounds urged in the petition. Further, contended that the petitioner has explained the circumstances under which cheques are given and there is no any nexus with regard to the transaction and proceedings has been initiated in civil side and the Court also declared that the cheques which are issued are no way connected to any debt or business transactions and hence, the respondent cannot proceed with the case.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent in his arg