- (1.) Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the Criminal Complaint No.142 dated 05.10.2009 (Annexure P-4) under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short Act) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including summoning order dated 17.02.2011 (Annexure P-5).
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the respondent was working with the petitioners and was being paid as per the news items brought by him. Respondent was inadvertently issued the cheque in question and was asked to accept the amount in question by way of another cheque. However, respondent presented the cheque in question for encashment with the bank. The cheque was dishonoured and the respondent served a notice through his counsel. In reply to the said notice, petitioners sent a demand draft dated 10.09.2009 with regard to the cheque amount. However, the said notice (Annexure P-2) was not received by the respondent. Respondent filed the complaint in question. Trial Court issued the summoning order dated 17.02.2011 (Annexure P-5) after recording preliminary evidence led by the respondent. Vide order dated 17.06.2011 (Annexure P-6), petitioners were ordered to be summoned for 13.09.2011. However, the case was taken up by the Trial Court on 12.09.2011 and petitioners were ordered to be summoned through non-bailable warrants of arrests. Challenging the said order, petitioner No.2 preferred a revision petition. During the pendency of the revision petition, the cheque amount in question was paid to the respondent by way of a demand draft. However, the respondent submitted that he wanted to continue with the criminal proceedings. The Court of Revision referred the matter to mediation vide order dated 13.10.2011 (Annexure P-11) to enable the parties to settle all their other disputes. Hence, this petition was filed. Learned counsel has further submitted that since the cheque amount in question has already been paid to the respondent, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but abuse of process of law.
(3.) None has appeared on behalf of the respondent despite service.;