Appellants before us are aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 7.6.2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad whereby and whereunder a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 praying for quashing the companyplaint proceedings under Section 138 and Section 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act before the IV Additional Munsif Magistrate,Guntur taking companynizance against them under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was dismissed.
The cheque was dishonoured for the third time also.
We may number companysider the submission of Ms.Desai, learned companynsel as regards the issuance of successive numberices.
It was returned un paid by the banker of the appellants on the ground of insufficient funds.
Appellants had entered into some business transactions in regard to supply of certain materials with Respondent No.1.
Appellant No.2 as a proprietor of appellant No.1 issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.
Appellants companytend that the said cheque was issued by way of security.
The factual matrix involved herein is number in dispute.
2 lacs in favour of the 1 companyplainant respondent on or about 22.6.2003.
Another numberice was sent for service on the proprietor of S.L. Structures and Engineers on or about 8.7.2003.
Admittedly appellants have number received the same.
The said cheque was presented in the bank on 23.6.2003.
Indisputably, as numberpayment was received from the appellant pursuant to the said numberice, a companyplaint petition was filed on 23.1.2004.
2 It is in the aforementioned situation, the respondents presented the cheque for the third time before the bank on 11.12.2003 which having been dishonoured, another numberice was sent and served on 17.12.2003.
Leave granted.
The first numberice purported to have been issued by the companyplainant respondent on 8.7.2003 is number on record.
As regards numberice dated 9.9.2003 which is said to be the second numberice, it is evident that the same had number been served upon the appellants having been returned.
However, admittedly, the said numberice was number served upon the appellants.
