K.S. Gupta, J.—This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the complaint case No. 71/98 under Sections 138/142 etc. of the Negotiable Instruments Act; 1881 (for short 'the Act') and the proceedings taken out herein.

2. In said complaint the petitioner No. 1, a company and petitioner 2 to 7 being its directors alongwith other have been impleaded as accused persons. It is not in dispute that Air Force Naval Housing Board, respondent No. 1 complainant deposited with petitioner No. 1 Rs. 50 lacs for a period of six months and towards repayment of that amount and interest accruing thereon the petitioner No. 1 issued post-dated cheques. Cheque towards principal amount of Rs. 50 lakhs dated 28th May, 1997 on being presented was dishonoured by the bankers on 31st May, 1997 with the remarks exceeds arrangements". Therefore, legal notice dated 11th June, 1997 was got served by respondent No.1 on petitioner No.1 Said cheque on being presented for encashment by respondent No.1 was again dishonoured. Thus, another legal notice dated 3rd November, 1997 was got served by respondent No. 1 on petitioner No. 1 and on failure of petitioner No. 1 to make the payment of the said cheque above complaint case No.71/98 was filed on 5th February, 1998 before a Metropolitan Magistrate. By way of pre-summoning evidence the respondent No. 1 examined P.C. Bhat as CW-1 on 7th February, 1998-19th September, 1998 and by the order dated 19th September, 1988 the petitioners were summoned for 19th October, 1998 to face the trial under Section 138 of the Act. It is also not in dispute that though in the complaint cause of action for filing it was based on the notice dated 11th June, 1997 but the statement of P.C. Bhat CW-1 refers to another notice dated 3rd November, 1997 issued to petitioner No.1 company.

3. Relying on the decision in Sadanandan Bhadran v. Madavan Sunil Kumar 1998 (6) SCC 514 : 1998 ISJ (Banking) 761, submission advanced by Sh. Suchit Mohanty for petitioner was that the complaint in question was not maintainable as it was barred by limitation under clause (b) of Section 142 of the Act. In Sadandan Bhadran's case (supra) the respondent handed over a cheque for Rs. 30,000/- to the appellant on 14th January, 1991 for liquidation of the loan amount and the cheque on being presented for encashment on 5th January, 1991, was returned for want of sufficient funds in the account of respondent. Thereafter, the appellant got sent a lawyer's notice to the respondent on 15th January, 1991 calling upon him to pay the aforesaid amount. At the request of respondent said cheque was again presented on 4th May, 1991 and this time also the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. Thus another notice dated 9th May, 1991 was served upon the respondent demanding the payment of cheque and on respondents failure to make payment the complaint came to be filed under section 138 of the Act on 30th June, 1991. On that complaint cognizance was taken and the respondent was summoned to face trial. After entering appearance the respondent filed an application alleging that there could not be more than one cause of action in respect of single cheque, therefore, the complaint was not maintainable. The trial Magistrate accepting that contention of the respondent acquitted him. Appeal taken against that order by the appellant was also dismissed by the High Court. On matter being taken by the appellant to Supreme Court the appeal too was dismissed. On page 519 of the report which is relevant it was held :

"The combined reading of the above two sections of the Act leaves no room for doubt that cause of action within the meaning of Section 142 (c) arises and can arise - only once.

Besides the language of Sections 138 and 142 which clearly postulates only one cause of action, there are other formidable impediments which negate the concept of successive causes of action. One of them is that for dishonour of one cheque, there can be only one o