Mere pendency of a civil suit between the parties regarding the amount covered by the cheques does not amount to an abuse of the process of the Court and does not warrant quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J. - This judgment will dispose of Criminal Misc. No. 10749M of 1992, 10751-M on 1992, 10753-M of 1992, 10755-M of 1992 and 10757-M of 1992, all titled as Sanjiv Kumar v. M/s. Surendera Steel Rolling Mills, Mandi Gobindgarh.

2. M/s. Surendera Steel Rolling Mills, carried on its business of steel rolling at Mandi Gobindarh. This firm filed five different complains against Sanjiv Kumar, the present petitioner, for a offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that the petitioner purchased rolling material from the firm on different dates and issued five cheques for a total amount of Rs. 3,40,000/- The cheques were presented to the bank by the firm through its banker but the same were dishonoured by Union Bank of : India, Mandi Gobindgarh with the remarks refer to drawer, meaning thereby, that there was no arrangement to meet the amount of the said cheques in the account of the petitioner. The petitioner was fully aware at the time of issuing the cheques that the same would not be honoured when presented to the concerned bank, On receipt of notice from the bank on 14.2.1971 the petitioner was asked to make payment of the amount within 15 days through a notice but no payment was mad.

3. The Petitioner has filed the present petitions under Section 482 or the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the five complaints filed by the respondent firm pending in the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Amloh and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. It was alleged in the petition that the petitioner had entered into a contract with the respondent for the the purchase of 500 MT of rolling material at the rate of Rs. 7800/- per MT but the respondent supplied only part of the material and as the price of the material had increased the respondent refused to supply the rest of the material unless post dated cheques were issued in advance. The following cheques were then issued :

Cheque No. Dated Rs.

0718430 10.10.90 1,00,000/-

0718342 10.11.90 60,000/-

0718338 10.12.90 60,000/-

0178339 10.01.91 60,000/-

0178341 10.02.91 60,000/-

Material against these cheques was to be supplied on the dates mentioned in the cheques. On failure of the respondent to supply the material he filed a civil suit No. 31 on 15-1-91 in the Court of Sub Judge 1st Class, Amloh. On 29-1-1991 the respondent also filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 4,51,635/- and also filed criminal complaints in which the petitioner was summoned. Proceedings in the suit filed by the respondent were stayed when an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was moved. The subject matter of the suit filed by the respondent and the allegations made in the complaint were of the same nature so proceedings in the complaint amounted to an abuse of the process of the Court.

4. In the return, file by the respondent a preliminary objection was raised that the petitions for quashing the complaints were liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay as the respondent had produced all its evidence and the case was pending for evidence in defence for which many opportunities had been granted to the petitioner. The petitions were filed malafide to delay the decision of the complaints. Cheques were given by the petitioner against the price of goods supplied and there was never any contract to supply any particular quantity of goods. The cheques were dishonoured by the bank. Statutory notice of demand of payment was issued to the petitioner and he had not made payment in compliance there with. The petitioner filed the suit only after he had received the notice issued to him.

5. I have heard the counsel for the parties.

6. In the present case there is no dispute regarding the fact that the cheques were issued and the same were dishonoured on presentation. Requisite notice was issued to the petitioner but no payment was made. Subsequently the petitioner filed a civil suit. The respondent too filed a suit for the recovery of the a