AGARWAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition u/s. 482 of the Cr. P. C. has been filed against the order dated 23-9-1997 in Cr. Case No. 791/1993 by A. C. J. M. Maihar. District Satna by which the complaint of non-applicant for an offence u/s. 420 of I. P. C. and u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been registered against the petitioner praying that the said proceedings be quashed. ( 2 ) THE facts, leading to the present petition are: that the complainant/non-applicant alleged that a Cheque bearing No. 715874 dated 17-9-1993 for Rs. 10,000/- issued by the petitioners in favour of the non-applicant. However the payment thereof was stopped and consequently the cheque was returned. The notice, as stipulated under the Negotiable Instruments Act, was returned. The notice, as stipulated under the Negotiable Instruments Act, was issued by the non-applicant and thereafter a complaint for offence u/s. 420 I. P. C. and u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed, which has been registered after due enquiry. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the petitioner No. 1 issued specific instructions to the non-applicant before he presented the cheque for payment in the Bank that he should not present the cheque for payment to the Bank as the non-applicant has been paid the consideration in cash and that the cheque should be returned to the petitioners. Moreover, even thereafter, the non-applicant presented the cheque, which was dishonoured as payment was stopped. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, the offence as above is not made out. ( 4 ) IT may be noticed that the case of the petitioners is that the cheque was issued in favour of the non-applicant, which was presented by the non-applicant in the Bank and was dishonoured. After completing formalities, as provided in the Negotiable Instruments Act of serving a notice, the non-applicant has filed the complaint, which has been registered. ( 5 ) OBVIOUSLY, therefore, there was ground for proceedings against the petitioners for offence u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and, therefore, the registration of the complaint was justified. The mere issuance of instructions or intimation for stoppage of payment of the cheque would not by itself, be sufficient to absolve the petitioners from the liability under the Act. The mere issuance of instructions or intimation for stoppage of payment of the cheque would not by itself, be sufficient to absolve the petitioners from the liability under the Act. In this connection, reference may be made to Mcdi Cements Ltd. v. Kuchil Kumar Nandi, wherein it has been laid down that, once the cheque is issued by the drawer a presumption under Section 139 must follow and merely because the drawer issues a notice to the drawee or to the bank for stoppage of the payment, it will not preclude an action u/s. 138 of the Act by the drawee or holder of the cheque in due course. T ( 6 ) IN view of above, it is clear that simply because the petitioners directed the drawee not to present the cheque for encashment, would be of no consequence, and would not absolve them from liability under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, the petitioners prayer for quashing the complaint filed by non-applicant cannot be allowed. Thus, this petition u/s. 482 of the Code Tof Criminal Procedure has no merit and is, therefore, dismissed. Petition dismissed. .