More than one cause of action on the same cheque is not contemplated or envisaged under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

S.S. Grewal, J. - This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) relates to quashment of complaint Annexure P/1, under Section 136 read with Section 141 to the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 as amended by the Act No 66 of 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and consequential proceedings taken thereunder pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa.

2. In brief facts relevant for the disposal of this petition as emerge from the complaint, are that complainant Company is engaged in its legitimate and lawful activities at Sirsa and at other places within India, and enjoys a great goodwill and high reputation amongst the men of similar trade and other persons. The accused company through its partners accused No.2 purchased goods from the complainant Company on credit basis and in this regard huge sums accumulated towards the price and other expenses concerning the goods to which the accused an liable to pay to the complainant company factually and legally. It was further alleged that a number of cheques were issued by the accused-Company in favour of the complainant Company as payment of price of goods supplied and one such cheque bearing No. QLK 374956 dated 20.7.1990 in the sum of rupees one lac was issued by accused No. 2 on behalf of accused-company. The said cheque was drawn on Punjab National Bank, Coembatore. The cheque was submitted by the complainant-company for encasing the same through its Banker at Sirsa, but this cheque could not be cleared and encashed and was returned unpaid and unsatisfied. The matter was brought to the notice of the accused telegraphically and it was followed by legal notice dated 11.9.1990 sent by Shri Rajesh Sethi, Advocate Sirsa on behalf of the complainant concern. The accused company in its reply dated 30.9.1990 through its counsel informed about the bouncing of the cheque and also its non encashment due to non-availability of the accused No. 2 in the town and consequent non-arrangement of the funds in the Bank account. Thereafter long discussions commenced between the complainant and the accused Company and the latter unequivocally promised and agreed to the complainant-concern for sending the aforesaid cheque again for clearance through their Banker at Sirsa in the second week of January, 1991 at any time. The complainant firm resubmitted the said cheque to their Banker at Sirsa i.e. State Bank of India, Sirsa on 9.2.1991 but the same was again return uncashed by the Banker of accused-Company with a letter dated 12.1.1991 wherein reasons for uncashing of the cheque was given as "exceeds arrangements". The banker of the complainant concern forwarded the bounced cheque along with the cheque return memo dated 1.2.1991. Then the complainant concern gave a legal registered notice dated 11.2.1991 under Section 138 (b) of the Act through Shri S.S. Goyal, Advocate, Sirsa. The accused firm did not make the payment as demanded under legal notice. It is further alleged that the aforesaid cheque bounced on 12.1.1991 on account of gross negligence on the part of the accused firm, who, have not cared to rectify their defect despite the full knowledge. It was next pleaded that the period for making the payment under Section 138 (c) of the Act had also expired and the accused in their reply dated 3.2.1991 to the aforesaid legal notice pleaded that they are trying to get rid of their criminal liability which otherwise may be fastened upon them on account of bouncing and dishonouring of the cheques. It was next pleaded that the accused who were incharge and responsible for functioning of the Company have made themselves liable for punishment under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Act.

3. The learned counsel for the parties were heard.

4. The objection raised on behalf of the complainant-Company that alternative remedy by way of revision is available, or that the accused moved application before the Chief Judici