JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.

1. The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of proceedings of Case No. C-359 of 2017, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, pending before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Baruipur, South 24 Parganas, and the order dated 14.01.2019 passed therein.

2. The petitioner’s case is that the opposite party no. 2, filed a complaint before the Court of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baruipur, South 24 Parganas, on March 23, 2017, against the Petitioner and his sole proprietorship concern, which in short is as follows:-

i. That in pursuance of an agreement between the Petitioner and the opposite party no. 2, the opposite party no. 2 had supplied dried flowers to the petitioner allegedly according to the specification previously agreed upon vide bills dated 04.09.2016, 23.09.2013, 03.10.2016 and 08.11.2016. Allegedly in discharge of his liabilities, the Petitioner had apparently issued a cheque being Cheque No. 000016 for a sum of Rs. 2,89,993/- drawn on HDFC Bank, Lenin Sarani Branch, in favour of Sri Mahalakshmi Dry Flowers, i.e. the sole proprietorship concern of the opposite party No. 2.

ii. The opposite party no. 2 had first deposited the said cheque with his banker on 08.11.2019, which was dishonoured due to “insufficiency of funds”.

iii. The opposite party No. 2 had thereafter, allegedly deposited the said cheque with his banker, i.e., Axis Bank, Joynagar Mazylpur Branch, on the Petitioner’s advice, on 07.12.2016 which was dishonoured on 17.12.2016 and was returned to the opposite party No. 2 allegedly on 05.01.2017 with the remarks “fund insufficient”.

iv. Thereafter the opposite party no. 2 sent a Notice dated 18.01.2017 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, calling upon the Petitioner to pay the amount of Rs. 2,89,993/- to the opposite party no. 2 which was delivered to the petitioner on 20.01.2017 and the petitioner, through his learned Advocate, replied to the learned Advocate of the opposite party no. 2, vide a letter dated 31.01.2017 which was received on 02.02.2017, apparently calling upon the opposite party no. 2 for settlement.

v. The opposite party No. 2 further alleged that he contacted the petitioner over phone several times but the Petitioner did not respond. vi. It has been also alleged that the Petitioner sent two other Notices dated 14.02.2017 and 23.02.2017 “by fabricating a false story”.

vii. The opposite party No. 2 finally visited the petitioner at his Office on 06.03.2017 but the Petitioner did not pay the amount in question.

3. Mr. Zohaib Rauf, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant proceeding so instituted by the opposite party herein is a malicious one and the same was instituted in order to spite the petitioner on account of personal grudge of the opposite party.

4. That it appears that along with the said petition of complaint, the petitioner also filed an Application for condonation of delay under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the matter was fixed for hearing on the point of cognizance on 26.04.2017.

5. The matter was adjourned due to a resolution of the local bar and was thereafter fixed on 30.08.2017. Thereafter, the opposite party no. 2 remained absent on 30.08.2017 and 24.11.2017 without taking any steps and on 16.01.2018 and 29.03.2018, the opposite party no. 2 resorted to dilatory tactics and prayed for adjournments from the learned Court.

6. The opposite party no. 2, then filed an amendment application on 11.10.2018 which was allowed on the same day without affording an opportunity of hearing to the opposite party no. 2 and the learned Advocate for the opposite party no. 2 filed an amended petition, without even serving a copy of the same to the Petitioner.

7. On 14.01.2019, the opposite party no. 2 filed a Supplementary Affidavit. On the same day, the application under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was a