Mention of words "along with accrued interest" with amount mentioned in dishonoured cheque will not render demand vague and illegal for prosecution of complaint u/ s. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

JUDGMENT

S.S Nijjar, J. - This order will dispose of Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 12/98, 13/98, 14/98, 15/98, 16/98, 17/98, 18/98, 29/98, 30/98, 31/98, 32/98, 33/98, 34/98 and 35/98 as there is commonality of facts, parties and points of law in all the matters. For the sake of convenience the facts have been taken from Criminal Writ Petition No. 12 of 1998.

2. This petition under Section 482 of the Criminal procedure Code has been filed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 16th May. 1997 passed by the Additional Chief Metropoliton Magistrate's 4th Court. Girgaum, Bombay in C.C. No. 297/S/96 whereby the application filed by the petitioner for dropping the proceeding has been rejected. Briefly the relevant facts may be noted.

3. The petitioner claims to be the non-Executive Director of the Company known as M/s. Jay Harsh Holding and Services Pvt. Ltd. having its registered office at Borivli (West), Mumbai. hereinafter referred to as Respondent No. 3 The Respondent No. 2 is, a businessman having its residential address at 801/A, Manish Park. Pump House, Andheri. Mumbai-400 093, hereinafter referred to as "the Complainant". The petitioner States he is not in charge of or responsible for the affairs of the said Company. He is not involved in the day to day affairs of the management of Respondent No. 3. The complainant has not lent and advanced a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- on 11-1-1996 and Rs. 3,50,000/- on, 26-2-1996 to the petitioner and Respondent No. 3 for their business purposes. The aforesaid advance made by the complainant are evidence by bills of exchange duly executed by and on behalf of Respondent No. 3 and the petitioner. The Respondent No. 3 issued to the complainant two cheques bearing cheque Nos. 847533 and 847536 drawn on Canara Bank both dated 12th August 1996 in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 3,50,000/-. These cheques were presented for payment on 12th August, 1996 at Central Bank/Bank of India K.D. Branch. The aforesaid cheques were returned of dishonoured on 16th August. 1996, by the Bankers of Respondent No. 3 and the petitioner with the endorsement "Funds insufficient". Therefore the complainant by his Advocate's notice dated 21st August. 1996 informed the accused i.e., Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 of the fact of dishonour of the aforesaid cheques and called upon them to may be payment in lieu of the said dishonoured cheques. This notice was replied by the petitioner and respondent No. 3 on 27th August. 1996 stating therein that "We want to pay the entire dues of, your clients as claimed in each of your notices but because of liquidity problem, we require some time. We request your clients, and also to you please do not proceed. We shall pay your dues accordingly to your notices dated 21-8-1996 within some time." Since no payment was made separate complaints were filed in the Court of the Addl. Chief Metropoliton Magistrate's 4th Court, Girgaum. Bombay. The learned Magistrate was pleased to issue process in the said complaint. The petitioner preferred criminal writ petition No.  403 of 1997 before this Court for quashing the process issued by the learned Magistrate. By order dated 26th March, 1997, this Court relying on the case of K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala1 held that it is open to the petitioner to approach the learned Magistrate with an application to drop the proceedings. It was ordered as follows:

"As observed by the Apex Court reported in (1992) 1 S.C.C. 217 (K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala) it is open to the petitioner to approach the learned Magistrate with an application to drop the proceedings. On such an application being filed, the learned Magistrate shall hear both the sides and pass orders according to law, till the disposal of the application, the petitioner in thes