JUDGMENT - Dr. PRATIBHA UPASANI, J.:---This matter appeared on Board on number of occasions. However, Opponent No. 1 continuously remained absent though duly served. 2.The present Criminal Application is filed by the applicant/original accused being aggrieved by the order of issuance of process passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 33rd Court, Ballard Pier, Bombay in Criminal Case No. 51/S of 1991 under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 3.Few facts which are required to be stated are as follows: As per the story of the applicant, Applicant and Opponent No. 1 had entered into an agreement dated 18th July, 1990, and by this agreement, the Opponent No. 1 purchased the rights to telecast the T.V. Serial "Sunehre Warq". The Opponent No. 1 was to make payment of Rs. 9,10,000/- as per the Schedule of the agreement, but paid only Rs. 1,18,000/-. As the money was not forthcoming, the contract was terminated by the applicant and he returned the cheque by letter dated 23rd August, 1990. Cheque dated 1st September, 1990 was presented by the Opponent No. 1 in their Bank on 27th November, 1990 but the same was returned dishonoured to the Opponent No. 1 by the Bank with intimation dated 7th December, 1990 with remarks "Refer to Drawer". 4.As per the case of the applicant, the Opponent No. 2 then gave notice to the applicant on 7th December, 1990 as per the requirement of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which was received by the applicant on 11th December, 1990. Thereafter, Opponent No. 1 re-deposited the cheque on 12th January, 1991, and on further completing the formality, filed case in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 33rd Court, Ballard Pier, Bombay, on 8th March, 1991. Thereafter, process came to be issued by the learned Magistrate against the accused. Being aggrieved, the applicant has approached this Court, praying that the said order of issuance of process be quashed. 5.It is the contention of the applicant that the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act are quite stringent which are to be scrupulously complied with, and that, the complainant No. 1 has not complied with this provisions. It is pointed out by Mr. Kulkarni appearing for the applicant that the cheque was deposited twice by the complainant, when as per the provisions of law, cause of action arose only once. It is pointed out by Mr. Kulkarni appearing for the applicant that the cheque was deposited twice by the complainant, when as per the provisions of law, cause of action arose only once. To substantiate his argument, he relied upon 1999(5) Bom.C.R. (S.C.)242 in Criminal Appeal No. 589 of 1992 dated 28th August, 1998 (Sadanandan Bhadran v. Madhavan Sunil Kumar)1. It is also pointed out by him that while the notice was dated 7th December, 1990, the complaint came to be filed after a period of three months on 8th March, 1991, and hence, the same is not maintainable, and hence, the process is required to be quashed. 6.I have heard Mr. Kulkarni, appearing for the applicant and Mr. Galeria, A.P.P., appearing for Opponent No. 2-State Mr. Galeria concedes after perusing the proceedings, that what is submitted by the applicant/accused is correct. I have also perused the proceedings. After perusing the record in the above matter, I find force in the submission made by Mr. Kulkarni appearing for the applicant. Hence, the following order : Criminal Application No. 529 of 1993 is allowed in terms of prayer Clause 6(iii) and is disposed of. A sum of Rs. 60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand) deposited in this Court be returned to the applicant, on his making application to the Registrar, High Court, Bombay to that effect. Application allowed. -----