Structured Summary of the Provided Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

These petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure sought quashing of complaints and related proceedings in C.C. No. 22 of 1990 and C.C. No. 23 of 1990 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam. The complaints were instituted under Section 138 of Act 66 of 1988 in respect of two cheques issued by the second petitioner, acting as partner of the first petitioner (a firm), in favour of the respondent. The cheques were dishonoured on presentation. Statutorily required demand notices were issued to the petitioners. The second petitioner sent a reply but no payment followed. Consequently, the respondent lodged the complaints as contemplated by the statute.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the complaints and related criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 22/1990 and C.C. No. 23/1990 should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2. Whether the alleged countermanding of payment by a "stop memo" affects the respondent's right to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of Act 66 of 1988.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

• The petitioners sought quashing of the complaints and related proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
• It is indicated in the opinion that the petitioners relied, at least in part, on the fact that payment had been countermanded by a "stop memo" (i.e., that the payment was stopped) to resist the respondent's proceedings.

Respondent's Position

• The respondent complied with the statutory prerequisites before filing the complaints (demand notices, etc.).
• The respondent's position, as reflected in the opinion, is that an amount was due and that the statutory process for initiating complaints under Section 138 had been followed.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court applied a concise, stepwise analysis based on the material facts before it:

1. Prima facie sufficiency: The court found that the allegations in the complaints did make out a prima facie case against the petitioners. This conclusion was based on the sequence of events set out in the record — issuance of cheques, dishonour on presentation, service of statutory notices, and failure to make payment despite a reply from the second petitioner.
2. Compliance with statutory preconditions: The court observed that the respondent had taken care to comply with the relevant legal provisions required before launching complaints under Section 138. That compliance weighed against interference at the quashing stage.
3. Effect of a stop memo: The court addressed the contention concerning a countermanded payment (a "stop memo"). It held that such a step is immaterial to the respondent's statutory right to initiate proceedings. The court analogised the practical effect of a stop memo to a closure of the account "as far as he [the respondent] is concerned," concluding that the statutory object would be frustrated if such an action could defeat a complaint.
4. Scope of interference under Section 482: Given the existence of a prima facie case and the respondent's adherence to procedural prerequisites, the court held that it could not, at this interlocutory stage, exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 to quash the complaints.

Holding and Implications

Final Ruling: The petitions to quash were dismissed. The opinion records the operative conclusion as: "This court cannot interfere at this stage. Cil. M.Cs are dismissed."

Implications:

• The direct consequence for the parties is that the criminal complaints under Section 138 of Act 66 of 1988 in C.C. No. 22/1990 and C.C. No. 23/1990 will proceed; the quashing application failed and does not halt the trial proceedings.
• The court explicitly treated the existence of a "stop memo" as not defeating the respondent's statutory remedy; therefore, such a countermand does not, in this opinion, bar initiation of proceedings under Section 138.
• The opinion does not indicate the setting of any new legal precedent; it resolves the matter on the specific facts and procedural posture and declines to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction at the interlocutory stage.

This summary is derived exclusively from the text of the provided opinion. No information has been added or inferred beyond what appears in that opinion.