Once the entire cheque amount is paid and accepted, the liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ceases, and interest cannot be claimed unless specified in the cheque.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Anoop Chitkara, J.

Seeking quashing of the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [NIA, 1881], summons, and all subsequent proceedings, the accused filed the present petition in the year 2015 before this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [CrPC].

2. Despite service, the respondent remained absent, and this Court appointed Ms. Lishika Mehta, Advocate (PH-3638-2023) as legal aid counsel on behalf of the respondent.

3. I have heard counsel for the petitioner as well as legal aid counsel appearing for the respondent and gone through the pleadings.

4. The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner had filed the present petition for quashing of the complaint P-1 dated 09-Sep-2013, under Section 138 NIA. The complaint alleges the dishonor of four cheques for a sum of Rs. 4,80,000/-. These cheques were issued by the petitioner against the purchase of plastic granules from respondent Company. The dispute between the same parties was for Rs. 5,05,621/-. Out of this, the complainant filed two complaints-the present one for 4,80,000/-, and the second one for the remaining Rs. 25621/-. Regarding the second complaint, the petitioner approached this Court and the petition registered as CRM-M No.26013 of 2015 had been allowed on 02-Jul-2018 by quashing the said complaint.

5. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that even before the complainant had filed the complaint in September 2013, the petitioner had started discharging the liability w.e.f. 07-Aug-2013 and released the total payment of Rs. 5,62,088/- to complainant in eleven regular installments (last on 26-Jun-2015). As per Para No.8 of internal page 3 of the reply filed by the respondent-complainant, she admits the receipt of Rs. 5,62,088/- against the five cheque amounts of Rs. 5,05,625/- but now claims that as per 24% interest, he is entitled to more amount. However, as far as liability under Section 138 NIA is concerned, the petitioner had admittedly discharged the liability qua the cheques by even making some excess payment, so for other grievance qua 24% interest, the complaint amounts to sheer abuse of legal process by misinterpreting the penal provisions of Section 138 of NIA, 1881.

6. Legal aid counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner claims to have made all the payments through RTGS, and such RTGS entries must be proved in trial Court by bank officials. Thus, it is a matter of trial whether these entries are valid or not. She further submits that even if the petitioner has made all the payments in installments of such debt, the respondent is entitled to get the interest @ 24% per annum as per general conditions mentioned in invoices issued by the respondent. It is also submitted that even if the petitioner had made the payments during the pendency of the complaint, it does not bar the complaint case from being maintainable against the petitioner.

7. An analysis of these submissions coupled with the pleading would lead to the following outcome.

8. The petitioner was summoned for 26.6.2015, she had already discharged the cheque liability. The complainant did not point out in the complaint P-1 that the petitioner had started releasing the cheque payments in installment and the complainant admits receiving the amount in reply filed to the present petition.

9. It would be appropriate to refer the grounds of petition which read as follows: -

"(2). That the brief facts of the case in nutshell are that the petitioner as well as the respondent firms have inter-se business dealings. The respondent firm deals in the business of manufacturing of Plastic Granules and the petitioner firm used to purchase the said material from the respondent firm. It would be apt to mention here that the petitioner firm used to make the payments to the respondent firm within times, without any default and both the firms had good understanding in respect of their business dealings.

(3). That as per their