Pradip Kumar Biswas, J. - (1.) Learned counsel for the petitioners is present. None appears, however, on behalf of the opposite party. However, the matter is taken up for consideration on its merit. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length.
(2.) This is an application under section 401 read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by Karnataka Agro Chemicals, a partnership firm along with five others against the opposite party seeking to quash the proceeding under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in Case No. C/ 137 of 1994 now pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 4th Court, Calcutta. The short facts leading to this revisional application may be summarised as follows:-
(3.) On April 8, 1994, the opposite party made a written complaint to the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta against the present petitioners alleging, inter alia, that the complainant is a Director of Paul Biswas & Company Private Limited and the accused No. 6 Mr. K.V.S. Rao, i.e. the petitioner No.6 is the Chief Marketing Manager of M/s. Karnatak Agro Chemicals, i.e. the petitioner No. 1 herein and he is the person in charge of the company and responsible officer in respect of Management, Administration of the company. It has also been alleged that accused Nos. 2 to 5, i.e. the petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 herein are the partners of the aforesaid company. Further it has been alleged that on August 3, 1993 the accused No.2, on behalf of the other accused persons settled the complaint's commission amounting to Rs. 2,46,043/- and arranged to make payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- keeping an outstanding balance of Rs. 46,043/-. The complainant, however, continued business with the aforesaid company but insisted upon for full payment of commission as agreed upon. Subsequently, by a letter No. KAC/PB/1036/93 dated 30.9.93/6.10.93 the accused terminated C & F agency of the complainant company. The complainant acknowledged the receipt of the said letter and repeatedly requested the accused persons to settle the accounts. When accused No. 2 by his letter No. KAC/PB/1332/93 dated November 17, 1993 intimated the complainant that the accused No. 6 has been duly authorised to settle the accounts and he would visit the complainant's office for the said purpose. The accused No. 6 visited the complainant's office on 19.11.93 and 20.11.93 and after proper verification of the accounts by both the parties, the accounts were settled. The settlement was arrived at in the manner that the complainant's company would get Rs. 2,45,813/- and for paying the aforesaid amount, the aforesaid company would issue post dated 20.11.93 acknowledged and accepted the said settlement of accounts and issued 5 post dated cheques in payment thereof. Out of the 5 post dated cheques, the last cheque bearing No. 515574 dated 26.2.94 for Rs. 70,813/- drawn on Vijay Bank, Rabindra Sarani Branch, Calcutta was presented for encashment on due date but the said cheque was dishonoured by the accused's banker with a remarks "effect not cleared" vide the Bank's memo dated 28.2.94. Again the aforesaid cheque was presented for encashment but the cheque was again dishonoured by the accused's banker. The complainant thereafter issued demand notice through his learned Advocate dated 8.3.94 sent under Registered Post and the said letters were received by the accused on 11.3.94 and 13.3.94 and his Advocate received the acknowledgement card on 21.3.94. Inspite of demand notice, the accused failed and neglected to pay the said cheque amount. It has further been alleged that the accused Nos. 2 to 5 are all the partners of the aforesaid company and consequently, all of them are aware of the facts and circumstances of the case and as such all of them are liable and responsible for the offence complained of and accused No. 6 is the Chief Marketing Manager and he is a responsible officer and person-incharge of the firm. With these allegations the complaint was filed.;