ORDER :- This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing order dated 14-1-2005.

2. Vide order dated 14-1-2005, petitioners were summoned by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to face trial in the complaint filed by the respondent, M/s. Springer India Pvt. Ltd. under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

3. Case pleaded by the complainant in the complaint is as follows :-

(a) Petitioner company, Shroff Publishers and Distributors Pvt. Ltd. issued a cheque bearing No. 144890 dated 1-8-2004 in the sum of Rs. 7,34,000/- drawn on the Saraswat Co-operative Bank, Vashi, Mumbai towards part discharge of its liability in the favour of the complainant.

(b) Complainant presented the cheque for encashment on 5-8-2004 which was returned unpaid with the endorsement 'payment stopped by the drawer'. Complainant was informed about the said dishonour on 5-8-2004 itself.

(c) Again on 11-11-2004, the complainant presented the cheque to its bank, Deutsche Bank, New Delhi. Cheque was again returned unpaid with the remark 'payment stopped'. Complainant was informed about the dishonour of cheque on 13-11-2004.

(d) On 23-11-2004, complainant sent a statutory notice of demand contemplated under Section 138 of the NI Act to the petitioner company calling upon it to pay the amount of the dishonoured cheque.

(e) Since the petitioner company failed to make payment of the amount of dishonoured cheque within the period of 15 days from the receipt of statutory notice sent by the complainant, complainant filed the present complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881 against petitioner company as also its directors (petitioner Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 herein).

4. Apart from giving reasons why payment was stopped, petitioners plead that complainant never represented the cheque in question to its bank, Saraswat Co-operative Bank Ltd. on 11-11-2004. That the cheque in question was only presented once i.e. on 5-8-2004. That since the complainant had send the statutory notices of demand beyond the period of 30 days as prescribed under clause (b) of proviso to Section 138 of the N.I. Act, present complaint is not maintainable.

5. It is no longer res integra that a cheque can be presented any number of times during the period of its validity (see the decision of the Supreme Court in Sadanandan Bhadran v. Madhavan Sunil Kumar, AIR 1998 SC 3043 : (1998 Cri LJ 4066)).

6. The only controversy involved in this petition is whether cheque in question was represented by the complainant on 11-11-2004.

7. To establish that the cheque in question was presented only once on 5-8-2004, petitioners have placed on record letters of Saraswat Co-operative Bank Ltd. dated 4-12-2004. 9-12-2004, 6-4-2005, 14-4-2005, 6-5-2005 and 30-1-2006. In said letters, Saraswat Co-operative Bank Ltd. has stated that the cheque in question was presented to it on 5-8-2004 and that it was never represented on 11-11-2004.

8. In support of averments made in the complaint, complainant has placed on record letter of Deutsche Bank dated 24-10-2005 as also a pay-slip. In the said letter, Deutsche Bank has supported the stand of the complainant that the cheque in question was returned unpaid on 13-11-2004 with the endorsement 'payment stopped'. Pay-slip shows that cheque in question was deposited by the complainant in its bank on 9-11-2004.

9. At this stage I note letter dated 24-2-2006 written by the counsel of the Deutsche Bank addressed to counsel for the petitioners. Relevant part of the said letter reads as under :-

"The cheque No. 144890 had again been deposited with the Bank's Delhi Branch in November, 2004 and had been then sent by the Delhi Branch to the Mumbai Branch of the Bank, where it was discovered that the cheque/negotiable instrument in question had a defacement with the words 'payment stopped' being written across the face of the negotiable instrument.

Accordingly, the cheque was not presented to the Saraswat Co-operative Bank and ret