Judgment : Petitioners are accused 1 to 5 in C.C.No.2116 of 1986 on the file of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Madras. 2. Accused 1 is a partnership firm, having its registered office at 146-B Shamaldas Gandhi Marg, Bombay-400 002. Accused 2 to 5 are the partners of the firm. The respondent/complainant is also a partnership firm having its office at No.38, Rajaji Road, Madras-1. The main object of the respondent-firm is to accept deposits of money from public for a specified period on monthly interest and reinvest the same by lending for interest to other firms and individuals. 3. In the course of their business the respondent-firm advanced monies to M/s.The Oriental Medical and Surgical Stores Pvt. Ltd., (for short ‘stores’). Accused 2 to 5 are the directors of the stores. The loans advanced to the stores by the respondent firm were guaranteed jointly and severally by accused 2 to 5. The respondent firm also advanced certain amounts to Victor and Company (India) Pvt. Ltd. (for short ‘Company’). The company based on the proposal given by accused 1 firm imported 100 tons of propylene Glycol from M/s.Hintcx B.V. Holland and in the course of the transaction the company appeared to have sustained a huge loss. Accused 2 to 5 assured and guaranteed the respondent-firm for the money lent to the company. 4. In the year 1984, the amount due to the respondent-firm from the stores and the company were transferred to accused 1-firm on the representation made by accused 2 to 5 that the said firm and the partners would be liable for the discharge of the amount advanced to the stores and the company. Accordingly, the liabilities of the stores and the company were transferred to accused I firm and its partners-accused 2 to 5. The liability so transferred amounted to Rs. 19.25 lakhs. At the time of transfer of such liability, accused 1-firm issued post-dated cheques to the respondent-firm representing that the cheques so issued would serve as a security and the respondent-firm need not present the same into the bank and the amount would be paid every now and then by accused 1-firm. Accused 1 and its partners did not keep up their promise in discharging the loan. Accused 1 and its partners did not keep up their promise in discharging the loan. Consequentry, the respondent-firm approached the accused and after prolonged discussions and persuation, they asked the respondent-firm to present the cheques issued to them into the bank for encashment. Accordingly, when the cheques were presented into the bank for encashment, all the cheques got bounded with an endorsement stating "Exceed arrangement. Present tomorrow". The cheques, when again presented, were not at all honoured. Consequently the respondent-firm filed a private complaint before the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Madras, which was taken on file as C.C.No.2116 of 1986 on his file. 5. On receipt of process, the accused came forward with the present action invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this court to quash the proceedings initiated against them. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, notwithstanding the fact that many grounds had been raised in the petition for quashing, would however restrict himself to press the lone and sole submission that the allegations made in the complaint, if carefully scrutinised, would point out that the transaction between the parties is purely of civil nature and no offence under Sec.420, I.P.C. would be made out and therefore it is that the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would repel such a submission. 8. Anxious consideration may now be given to the submission of either counsel. 9. There is no pale of controversy that the respondent-firm advanced certain amounts to the stores and the company, and the amounts so advanced were transferred to the account of accused 1-firm or the undertaking by the firm and its partners accused 2 to 5 that the liability incurred by the above said firm would be discharged by them. It is also not in dispute that accused 1-firm issued certain post-dated cheques for the discharge of their obligations to the respondent-firm, amounting to Rs. 19.25 lakhs. The further admitted fact, as culled out from the allegations in the complaint, is that the post-dated cheques given by accused-petitioners were intended to serve only as security for the discharge of their obligations on their undertaking that they will make payments of the amounts due to the respondent-firm in instalment basis every now and then. The further admitted fact is that accused did not discharge their obligations to the respondent-firm as agreed to. The further admitted fact is that accused did not discharge their obligations to the respondent-firm as agreed to. It is only there after the post-dated cheques issued by the accused were presented into the bank for encashment and the cheques so presented got bounced. The issuance of the post-dated cheques, their subsequent presentation into the bank and their bouncing have to be viewed in the backdrop and setting of circumstances as enumerated above. 10. The circumstance, as enumerated above, and as revealed from the averments in the complaint, would point out that the petitioner-accused incurred a debt to the respondent-firm and towards the discharge of the debt, accused-petitioners issued postdated cheques. The issuance of post dated cheques, in such a situation and circumstances would only amount to a promise to discharge their obligations to the respondent-firm on a future date. If the promise is broken by the dishonouring of the cheques so issued, it would amount to a breach of promise liable in civil action. It is not as if at the time when the post dated cheques were issued, the petitioners accused represented that they were having fluid cash resources at their disposal in the bank account and the allegations in the complaint, if perused, it will be patent that to this effect, there are no allegations. In such a circumstance, I am of the view that the issuance of post-dated cheques by petitioners-accused is nothing but a representation about a future event holding out of a hope rather than a representation of a present fact and if such cheques were to be dishonoured, it amounts to a broken promise, but not to a criminal offence, although it would amount to discreditable conduct in business circle. In this view of the matter, the petition deserves to be allowed. 11. In the result, the petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners accused in C.C.No.2116 of 1986 on the file of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Madras shall stand quashed.