The High Court cannot resolve factual disputes in a quashing petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as such matters must be determined by the trial court.

JUDGMENT :

Subhendu Samanta, J.

1. This is an application u/s 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing a criminal complaint case No. being 6602 of 2017 pending before the Learned 20th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta alleging the offence punishable u/s 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act 1881.

2. The brief fact of the petitioner before this court is that the petitioner and OPs had business relations since last 10 years. Petitioners provided services to the complainant for their various contracts and project jobs. Time to time petitioner has been awarded that numerous job works for supply, installation, testing and commissioning their components. The petitioner has been diligently and honestly providing its service and facilities to the complainant all along accordingly from time to time. Petitioner raised multiple bills/invoices for such services upon the complainant.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that, initially the complainant made payments regularly against the bills, but past few years the complainant are not making regular payments to the petitioner as per his requirement.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner has suffered monitory and business loss due to the act of the complaint. It is the positive fact of the petitioner that complainant was reluctant in making any payment to the petitioner without giving any cogent and valid reasons in spite of suffer repeated requests. As on 15th October 2015, a sum of Rs. 30,47,471/- is due and payable from complaint. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner was engaged in supply and installation of his different type of work. Petitioner was in urgent requirement of three numbers of Air Cooled Screw Chillers and was looking after the same for its market availability. It is the further case of the petitioner that the complainant company and its office bearer repeatedly and insisted the petitioner to purchase the said machine from their company. Initially the petitioner was hesitant but due to the urgent need of such machine the petitioner has purchased the said three machines from the complainant for total cost of Rs. 35,40,000/-. It is the case of the petitioner that the complainant has induced petitioner to pay initial sum of Rs. 7,08,0000/- as advanced against the same purchase order. The petitioner has complied such direction. It was assured by the complainant that the entire amount should be adjusted later and the petitioner shall get back the entire differential amount of payables and receivables. Believing upon such representations, petitioner has placed an order for purchase of such three machines. It is the further case of the petitioner that in executing the said purchase order the complainant company as again induced the petitioner to execute indemnity bond along with three cheques. The petitioner has executed indemnity bond and delivered the three cheques. It was assured by the complaint that those cheques would never been deposited, but it would be kept for security purpose. The petitioner submits that it is the utter surprise of the petitioner that the complainant has deposited the said cheques in the banker and has issued demand notice on 06th October 2017. It is the case of the petitioner that the instant criminal proceeding is mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive only to invalid the payment in favour of the petitioner. So he prayed for quashing of the instant criminal complaint.

5. Learned Counsel for the complainant/OP submits that admittedly the petitioner has issued three cheques, out which two were placed for encashment. The two cheques were found to be dishonoured upon receipt of the memorandum from the bank. The complainant had duly served statutory demand notice u/s 138(b) of the NI Act 1881 within its time. It is the further case of the OP that, although the accused has received the said notice but has failed and to pay the cheq