IMPORTANT POINT
Unless a notice is given to drawer of the cheque demanding payment of cheque amount and unless the drawer fails to make payment of the amount within 15 days, no offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act can be said to have been committed.

Shri Kant Tripathi, J.—By the instant petition under section 482 Cr.P.C the petitioner Arun Chawla has prayed for quashing the proceedings of the criminal case No. 6736 of 2007, State v. Arun Chawla and others (case crime No. 516-B of 1999) under Sections 406,420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, police station Hazratganj. district Lucknow, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate -II, Lucknow.

2. I have heard Mr. Satyendra Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned AGA for the State of U.P and the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 Smt. Neeru Tripathi and perused the record.

3. The opposite party No. 2 Smt. Neeru Tripathi made a fixed deposit of Rs. Fifty thousand with M/s Rock Land Leasing Limited having its zonal office at 81. Halwasiya Market, 2nd Floor, Hazaratganj, Lucknow which issued post-dated cheques in her favour regarding the maturity amount of the fixed deposit. When the opposite party No.2 tendered the cheques to her banker for encashment the same were dishonoured. It is also alleged that the opposite party No.2 visited several times to the office of the company but no attempt was made by the officers and employees of the company to make the payment. When she visited third time to the office of the company certain anti-social elements, who were present in the office forcibly snatched away the post-dated cheques from the opposite party No.2 and told that she would not be paid even a single penni, On her repeated requests the cheques were however returned to her. The petitioner happens to be one of the officers of the company is alleged to be responsible for the offences of criminal breach of trust, cheating and forgery.

4. The opposite party No. 2 lodged an FIR at the police station Hazratganj, Lucknow, on which basis the E.O.W. conducted the investigation and submitted charge sheet under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC against the petitioner and the other accused. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and issued processes against the petitioner.

5. The opposite party No.2 Smt. Neeru Tripathi has filed counter affidavit and admitted in paragraphs 24 and 28 thereof that she has received her entire money with interest from the company. It may not be out of context to mention that the opposite party No.2 had filed a similar affidavit before the District & Sessions Judge. Lucknow and admitted receipt of the entire amount of Rs. 58,050/- vide the Bank Draft No. 1398 23 dated 25.1.2007 payable at the ICICI Bank. Hazratganj Branch, Lucknow, copies of the affidavit and bank draft have been filed respectively as Annexure Nos.3 and 4 to the petition. In the counter affidavit as well as the affidavit filed before the District and sessions Judge, Lucknow, the opposite party No.2 has not only admitted receipt of the payment of the entire amount but has also stated that she has no grievance against the petitioner and the company and its officers and has settled her disputes with them

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proceedings of the criminal case are liable to be quashed on the following grounds:

Mere dishonour of a cheque does not constitute any offence under sections 420,467, 468 and 471 read with section. 120-B IPC. The facts of the case, at most, may constitute an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act but the notice as required by the said section has not been given:

There was no dishonest or fraudulent intention on the part of the company at the inception of the transaction of deposit of money by the opposite party No. 2 and issue of post dated cheques by the company;

The intention of the company can not be said to be dishonest or fraudulent if due to any subsequent changed circumstances payment could not be made in time;

The post dated cheques were genuine and were not in any way forged or fabricated;

The entire money has been paid to the opposite party No.2 and she has settled her dispu