Compliance with the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, including Section 87, is crucial in cases involving dishonour of cheques.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.

1. The present revisional application has been preferred praying for quashing of the proceeding of C.S. No. 53426 of 2019, under Sections 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 pending before the Court of the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court at Calcutta.

2. The petitioners state that they are the office bearers of M/s, Gurudayal Gangabux (Pvt.) Ltd. having its Registered Office at-“Jute House” 12, India Exchange Place, Kolkata – 700 001 (hereinafter referred to as “M/s Gurudayal Gangabux”) which deals in export & import and the said M/s Gurudayal Gangabux are doing such business for a considerable period of time with great goodwill and reputation.

3. For the purpose of smooth running of the aforesaid business, M/s Gurudayal Gangabux used to obtain financial assistance from various banks and other financial institutions.

4. In the year of 2016, the petitioners being aware of the name of the opposite party no. 2 being a company who used to provide financial assistance to individuals and companies, approached the opposite party no. 2 for a loan and/or financial accommodation to the tune of Rs. 50 Lakh.

5. After proper verification and inspection done by the opposite party no. 2 agreed to provide and/or disbursed a loan to the tune of Rs. 50 Lakh and accordingly on March 21, 2016 the said amount was remitted through RTGS/NEFT in favour of M/s Gurudayal Gangabux. It was further agreed that the entire money will be paid within March 2017, if not extended further.

6. But subsequently the petitioners decided to foreclose the loan, which was obtained from the opposite party no.2 by paying the residue amount, which was supposed to be paid within March 2017 and to discharge the liability to pay, the petitioners called upon the opposite party no. 2 and expressed their willingness to pay off the residue amount.

7. The petitioners state that on July 15, 2019, the opposite party no.2 herein filed a complaint before the learned CMM against the petitioners herein including the other accused persons, being CS No. 32544 of 2019, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 406/409/420/120B of IPC quashing of which has also been prayed for in CRR 3637 of 2019 which is being heard with the present revision as the dispute arises out of the same transaction.

8. The allegation as made in the petition of complaint includes that on receiving summons on 28.08.2019, in C.S. 32544/2019, the accused No. 3 approached the representative of the complainant company in the court premises and agreed to settle the matter and assured that the cheque for the said amount shall be sent shortly, so that the matter is resolved.

9. Ultimately in compliance to the assurance of the accused person and in discharge of their aforesaid existing legal, financial, enforceable principle liabilities, and/or to liquidate the same in part they issued and sent One A/c. payee cheque bearing No. 510577 dated 01.08.19 for Rs. 50,00,000/- drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, Brabourne Road, Kolkata, from the bank A/c of accused No. 1, duly signed by accused No. 3 favouring the complainant company.

10. The complainant company presented the said cheque bearing No. 510577 dated 01.08.19 for Rs. 50,00,000/- drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, Brabourne Road, Kolkata for encashment within its validity period to its banker HDFC Bank Ltd., Park Street, Kolkata, but the said cheque was returned unpaid being dishonoured with the remark “Alteration in Date” vide its return memo/debit advice dated 16.09.2019, and intimation of the same was received by the complainant company subsequently from its banker.

11. The further allegation of the complainant is that from the said remark it is crystal clear that the accused persons had not arranged sufficient funds in their said bank account to cause honour of the said cheque and to defraud the complainant company, issued such cheque. The complainant company then requested the accused persons either to