Nirendra Krishna Mitra, J. - (1.) In this writ application, the petitioners have challenged the complaint case No. 84G /B of 1989 arising out of a complaint lodged by respondent No. 2 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 28 Court, Bombay, so far as the writ petitioners are concerned.
(2.) Shorn of all details, the facts as stated by the petitioners in the writ application, inter alia, are that petitioner No. 1 is a private company and carries on business as a finance and investment company at 95, Park Street, Calcutta-700 016, within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble court and petitioner No. 2 is a shareholder and director of petitioner No. 1 company. In the month of March, 1989, respondent No. 3 approached petitioner No. 1 for a loan and/or advance of rupees two lakhs which was sanctioned after negotiation, and at the request of respondent No. 3, petitioner No. 1 issued two cheques of rupees one lakh each in the name of respondent No. 2 under the signature of petitioner No. 2, on March 17, 1989, drawn on Vijaya Bank at Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta, with a request to deposit one cheque on March 30, 1989, and the other on April 10, 1989. The petitioners have further stated in their writ application that the petitioners came to learn from respondent No. 3 that it had entered into an agreement with respondent No. 2 to purchase the shares of his company and also the technical know-how and other devices for the manufacture of medicine which the company of respondent No. 2 used to manufacture and, as such, respondent No. 3 had requested the petitioners to jmake payment of rupees two lakhs to respondent No. 2 as aforesaid as part payment under the said agreement. However, respondent No. 3 did not provide petitioner No. 1 with the necessary securities in the matter after issuance of the aforesaid cheques and also informed subsequently that such payment was not required to be made to respondent No. 2 and terminated the loan agreement with petitioner No. 1 on the ground that the loan was no longer necessary and as such,.the petitioners did not arrange for the necessary funds for encashment of the aforesaid two cheques issued to respondent No. 2. On May 17, 1989, petitioner No. 2 received a letter from respondent No. 2 ( annexure 'B') with the information that the aforesaid two cheques were returned unrealised by his bankers. Standard Chartered Bank, Bombay. Petitioner No. 1, by its letters dated May 27, 1989 and June 16, 1989 (collectively marked as annexure " C"), informed respondent No. 2 that, on the request of respondent No! 3, the said two cheques were issued in favour of respondent No. 2 but, as respondent No. 3 subsequently instructed petitioner No. 1 not to make such payment and/or recalled its loan agreement with petitioner No. 1, petitioner No. 1 did not make any arrangement for payment of the said two cheques and there was no privity of contract between the petitioners and respondent No. 2.
(3.) Thereafter, petitioner No. 1 had received summons from respondent >{o. 1 in February, 1991, together with a copy of the complaint in complaint case No. 840/B of 1989 lodged by respondent No.2, against the petitioners for their alleged offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 {annexure "D" ).;