@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Vaman Rao, J.@mdashThis petition filed u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure seeks quashing of the proceedings in C.C. No. 120 of 1998
pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gooti of Anantapur District, in which, the petitioner is sought to be prosecuted for
an offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ''the Act'').
2. The petitioners case is that he has been working as canvasser (middle man) for the business of sale of oil, in which, the second respondent M/s
Madhu Solvents Extractions Pvt. Ltd., Gooti, is engaged. In pursuance of the business, the second respondent-Company supplied its products to a
firm called as M/s Anuradha and Company, Vijayawada, under the brokerage of the petitioner herein. The said M/s Anuradha and Company fell
in arrears of certain amount to the second respondent-Company towards purchase of their products. As they were unable to pay the amount
immediately, they requested the petitioner through their letter dated 14.3.1998 to arrange payment of the said due amount of Rs. 2,96,108.00 to
the second respondent-Company. M/s Anuradha and Company promised to repay the amount to the petitioner with interest. In view of this
request, the petitioner issued three cheques in question, which are subject matter of prosecution, in favour of the second respondent-Company
totally covering an amount of Rs. 2,96,108.00. When the cheques were presented for encasement. they were bounced for want of sufficient funds
in the account of the petitioner. In view of this, the second respondent-Company filed a complaint in the Court of concerned Magistrate in C.C.
No. 120 of 1998.
3. The contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that after petitioner gave the cheques to the second respondent-Company, M/s
Anuradha and Company. who were liable to pay the amount in question, had separately paid the amounts due to the second respondent-
Company. A reference is made to certain letters said to have been written by M/s Anuradha and Company dated 14.3.1998 and 14.5.1998.
4. The contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that inasmuch as the amounts for which the cheques in question were issued by the
petitioner, having already been paid by the firm M/s Anuradha and Company, which in fact owed that amount to the second respondent-
Company, the amounts covered by the cheques issued by the petitioner must be deemed to have been paid. These cheques can no longer be
considered as having been issued to discharge any debt due within the meaning of Section 138 of the act. Under these grounds. the proceedings
are sought to be quashed.
5. Though, in the counter filed in this Court on behalf of the second respondent, there was no specific denial or admission of the fact of subsequent
payment of amounts covered by the cheques in question, the second respondent-Company filed an additional counter in which the payment of the
amounts covered by these cheques have been specifically denied. It is also asserted that the second respondent-Company has not received any
letters or demand drafts as mentioned in the letters referred to-in the petition.
6. Learned Counsel for the respondent Mr. K.V. Chalapathi Rao contends that these are, at any rate, matters which arc required to be gone into
by the trial Court.
7. From the above it is apparent that the main plea of the petitioner for quashing these proceedings that the amounts represented by these three
cheques in question have already been paid by M/s Anuradha and Company to the second respondent-Company/complainant, is specifically
denied. In view of this, it is not possible to state that on the basis of admitted facts or on the basis of the contents of the complaint, no case for an
offence punishable u/s 138 of the Act is made out. In view of this, there is no ground for quashing the proceedings at this stage.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent-Company contains false
assertions. This again is a question of fact, and before the trial Court if such a plea is taken by the second respondent-Company and found to be
false it has to be considered as a serious matter, which will, apart from other consequences, have a bearing on the quantum of sentence to be
imposed by the learned Magistrate. At any rate, in view of the disputed facts, the question of quashing these proceedings, at this stage, does not
arise.
9. In the result, this petition is dismissed.