The legal principle established is that the dishonour of cheques followed by notices of demand and failure to pay, as per the provisions of S.138 of Act 66 of 1988, constitute a prima facie case, and the stop memo countermanding the payment does not affect the right to initiate proceedings under the Act.

These petitions filed under S.482 Cr.P.C. are to quash the complaints and related proceedings in C.C.No. 22 of 1990 and C.C.No.23 of 1990 pending against the petitioners before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam. The complaints were filed under S.138 of Act 66 of 1988 in respect of two cheques which the 2nd petitioner had issued as partner of the 1st petitioner, firm, in favour of the respondent. The cheques were dishonoured upon presentation. As required notices were issued to the petitioners. A reply was sent by the 2nd petitioner but payment was not made. Complaints were, therefore, laid as warranted by the provisions of the above Act.

2. The allegations in the complaints in my view do make out a prima facie case against the petitioners. Before filing the complaints respondent had taken care to abide by the relevant legal provisions. Indeed, it is not the case of the petitioner that no amount is due to the respondent. The issuance of cheques and their dishonour followed by notices of demand and failure to pay, are not matters which had been challenged. That payment was countermanded by a stop memo is of no consequence. That hardly affects the right of the respondent to initiate proceedings under the Act. It has the same effect' as a closure of the account as far as he is concerned. The object of the provision cannot be allowed to be defeated by such ingenuous action.

3. I think, the prayer to quash the complaints and related proceedings is misconceived. Prima facie, there is case against the petitioners as alleged. This court cannot interfere at this stage. Crl.M.Cs. are dismissed.