Suresh Kait, J.

1. Vide the present petition, petitioner seeks directions thereby quashing of complaint case titled as M/s. Chetak International Private Limited vs. M/s. Mohan Energy Corporation Limited and Others, bearing CC No. 4270/2014 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, (NI Act-2) Saket Courts, New Delhi along with the proceedings emanating there from.

2. The present petition has been filed on the ground that cheque bearing No. 205775 dated 31st May, 2014 was a post dated cheque, which was handed over by the petitioner to respondent No. 2, to be presented for encashment only after respondent No. 2 delivers all the five containers withheld by him in terms of minutes of meeting dated 2nd May, 2014. In the relevant portion of the minutes dated 2nd May, 2014 it was agreed between the parties as under:

“The above schedule is agreed by both the parties to effect release of 5 containers held and to release of POE and other shipping documents as abovementioned.

By way of this document, MECPL assures that it will not stop the payment of cheques given that CIPL ensures the smooth deliveries of 5 containers and all documents on the given dates”.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite the fact that respondent No. 2 withheld three containers with him, still in violation of the aforesaid minutes, he presented the cheque for encashment. Respondent No. 2 even till date has not delivered the three withheld containers, but on the other hand had presented the cheque despite specific intimation given on 29th May, 2014 for not presenting the cheque without delivery of the containers.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that minutes of meeting dated 2nd May, 2014 were specific in this regard that respondent No. 2 will get the payment of Rs. 34,00,000/- subject to the delivery of all the five consignments. Thus, by presenting the cheque respondent No. 2 has violated terms of agreement. Moreover, before presenting the cheque petitioner intimated respondent No. 2 on 29th May, 2014 not to present the cheque without delivery of the containers, however, on 31st May, 2014 the cheque was presented and the same got dishonoured and, consequently, respondent No. 2 had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the petitioner herein.

5. To strengthen his arguments, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relies on the decision titled as Electronics Trade and Technology Development Corporation Limited, Secunderabad v. Indian Technologists and Engineers (Electronics) (P) Ltd. (1996) 2 SCC 739, wherein it was held as under:-

“6. Shri Nageswara Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, contended that stoppage of payment due to instructions does not amount to an offence Under Section 138 and that, therefore, the ingredients in Section138 have not been satisfied. We find no force in the contention. The object of bringing Section 138 on statute appears to be to inculcate faith in the efficacy of banking operations and credibility in transacting business on negotiable instruments. Despite civil remedy, Section 138 intended to prevent dishonesty on the part of the drawer of negotiable instrument to draw a cheque without sufficient funds in his account mainly attained by him in a bank and induce the payee or holder in due course to act upon it. Section 138 draws presumption that one commits the offence if he issues the cheque dishonestly. It is seen that once the cheque has been drawn and issued to the payee and the payee has presented the cheque and thereafter, if any instructions are issued to the Bank for non-payment and the cheque is returned to the payee with such an endorsement, it amounts to dishonour of cheque and it comes within the meaning of Section 138. Suppose after the cheque is issued to the payee or to the holder in due course and before it is presented for encashment, notice is