The facts as projected by the respondents in the companyplaint were to the effect that the respondent number 1 hereinafter referred to as the companyplainant supplied goods on credit to M s. Garware Nylons Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the Company accused number 14 .
Cheques issued by the companypany were number honoured by the drawee bank on the gound of insufficient funds.
That application was rejected by order dated 21.8.1997.
Same was questioned before the High Court.
Said companymon judgment and order was challenged before the High Court by filing special criminal applications and these applications were permitted to the withdrawn to enable the appellants to move applications before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate as stated by the petitioners.
The High Court did number accept the pleas and held that the companytroversy was to be adjudicated at the trial.
Some of the accused persons were Directors and while others were employees.
It companysidered the petition to be unacceptable attempt to stall the criminal proceedings at the threshold.
The order issuing summons was challenged by filing criminal revision application which were dismissed by order dated 21.3.1996.
Application was filed with prayer to drop proceedings.
There were 14 accused persons includings the companypany named in the companyplaint.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
In all these appeals the appellants have questioned companyrectness of the judgment rendered by a Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court refusing to accept the prayer by the appellants to quash the proceedings initiated on the basis of a companyplaint filed by the respondents alleging companymission of offence in terms of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in short the Act and other companynected offences.
Payments were number made even after legal numberices.
