ORDER :

None appear for the petitioner either physically or through video conferencing.

2. This matter is slated today for orders for furnishing requisite process fee with a copy of the petition and so also furnishing correct address to issue notice to respondent.

Several opportunities have been granted to the counsel for the petitioner to cure the defects. But he has not done the needful. This day, the matter is again posted before court to furnish process fee, petition copy and correct address to issue notice to respondent for the third time.

3. This petition is filed seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the accused in C.C.No.52474/2017 which is pending before the Court of the XIV ACMM, Bangalore, for offences punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. The complaint was initiated by M/s. Monarch Ergonomics India Pvt Ltd. represented by its Manager Shri M. Kannan being a Power of Attorney holder. This complaint has been registered by him against M/s. Embassy Services Pvt. Ltd. represented by its authorised signatory Mr. Pradeep Lala and another. Accused No.2 is said to have issued a cheque of Rs.6,00,000/- dated 4.10.2014 to the complainant, to discharge his liability, which is stated in paragraph 8 of the private complaint. But Accused No.1 represented by Accused No.2 was required to pay a total amount of Rs.28,22,177/-for the total quantity of the goods supplied to Accused No.1, represented by Accused No.2.

But the banking endorsement reveals ‘funds insufficient’ when the complainant presented a cheque for encashment. Therefore, the complainant initiated a private complaint against the accused in C.C.No.52474/2017. The Court of the XIV ACMM, Bangalore, considered the scope of Section 138 and Section 142 of the NI Act including Section 418 and 420 of the IPC. The order-sheet maintained by the trial court has been produced in this matter for the purpose of perusal.

4. The initiation of the criminal prosecution for the offences under Section 138 of the NI Act and the section itself indicates the limitation for initiation of the private complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act. Therefore, it is said that in terms of the cause of action or even in terms of pre-cognizance and post-cognizance that these stages are important or having vital role to initiate private complaint against the accused insofar as offences under Section 138 of the NI Act. The said process has been followed by the complainant / respondent to initiate private complaint against the accused for offences under Section 138 of the NI Act.

The criminal prosecution has been set in motion by initiation of the private complaint by following the requisite provisions of Section 138 of the NI Act and cognizance has been taken under Section 190(a) or (b) (c) of the Cr.P.C. Witnesses have been secured and subjected to examination and cross-examination as per the relevant provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, in this matter, it is said that there is no merit in this petition to call for interference relating to initiation of criminal proceedings against the accused in C.C.No.52474/2017 by urging various grounds.

The petition being without any merits, the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. Further the petition though filed in the year 2017, it is still at the stage of furnishing process to issue notice to respondent. The counsel for the petitioner nor the petitioner are diligent or vigilant to prosecute this petition. Hence for the said reason as well, the petition stands dismissed.