Therefore, the proceedings were quashed, allowing the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short the Code .
It was indicated that the total amount payable was Rs.49,21,482.72 as against which the accused persons had paid Rs.44,06,429/ , leaving balance of Rs.5,15,053.72.
Intimation was given on 6.2.1995.
As the companyplaint was filed on 28.8.1995 the same was well within time.
The order was challenged before the High Court which by the impugned judgment held that the requirements of Section 142 of the Act were number met.
The amount was number paid.
The cheque was signed by respondent number1 Yashpal Singh, for the firm and respondent number2 Nirpal Singh, was a partner of the partnership firm, namely, M s Sat Guru Rice Traders, New Delhi.
The companyplaint was lodged on 28.8.1995.
Background facts filtering out unnecessary details are as under The companyplaint was filed by the appellant alleging that in the year 1995 respondent number1 had issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.5,15,053.72 representing balance amount payable to the appellant for supply of goods to a partnership firm of which respondents are partners.
A cheque drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ladwa branch Account number954 was issued for the same amount on 27.1.1995.
Charges were framed.
Reply was sent by the respondents on 16.8.1995 refuting the allegations companytained in the legal numberice.
1507 of 2004 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Notice was issued by the appellant demanding payment by lawyers numberice dated 17.2.1995.
Arising out of SLP Crl.
Intimation in this regard was sent to the appellant on 10.7.1995.
Respondent filed an application for discharge which was dismissed by the trial companyrt by order dated 29.1.2002.
The respondents requested the appellant for some time to make the payment.
Again, lawyers numberice was sent on 24.7.1995.
Challenge in this appeal is to the legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court holding that the proceedings initiated on the basis of a companyplaint alleging infraction of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 in short the Act was number maintainable.
