JUDGMENT Syamal Kanti Chakrabarti, J. 1. IN the instant application under section 482 Cr. PC the legality and propriety of criminal proceeding being Case No. C/2025 of 2006 under section 138/148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act now pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 13th Court, Calcutta has been challenged. 2. IT is contended that the petitioner No. 1 is a registered company under the Companies Act, 1956 while the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were directors of the company. The petitioner No. 3, however, has resigned from the board of directors and share holder-ship on 28.11.1996 which was duly communicated to the registrar of companies by filing Form No. 32 which was received by them on 10.12.1996. The Opposite Party No. 2 is also a company who has filed the above complaint being Case No. C/2025 of 2006 against the petitioner No. 1 company and Ors. alleging inter alia, that in discharge of existing legal debts and liabilities the accused person issued six cheques in favour of the Opposite Party No. 2 amounting to a total sum of Rs. 1,56,882/- only drawn on the Allahabad Bank, College Street Market, Kolkata on different dates namely, 01.07.2005, 01.08.2005, 01.09.2005, 01.10.2005, 01.11.2005 and 01.12.2005. While those cheques were presented for encashment through their banker UBI, Park Street Branch those were dishonoured with the remarks "Exceeds Arrangements" mentioned in banks memo dated 22.12.2005 and advise slip dated 23.12.2005. Accordingly demand notice dated 30.12.2005 was sent to the accused persons by speed post with A/D on 31.12.2005 asking for such payment within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The said notice was served upon the accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 on 02.01.2006. On receipt of such demand notice dated 31.12.2005 accused No. 1 by its letter dated 04.01.2006 intimated the Opposite Party No. 3 that Shri Bhanwar Lal Dave expired on 03.08.1995 and that the petitioner No. 4 also resigned from the directorship and share holdership of the petitioner/No. 1 company with effect from 28.11.1996 and as such not connected in any way with the alleged offence. Moreover, on 16.01.2006, i.e., within the notice period the petitioner No.1 company made payment of Rs.1,04,588/- against the four dishonored cheques in the form of 4 demand drafts in lieu of 4 dishonoured cheques which were duly received by the petitioner No. 2 on 16.01.2006. Moreover, on 16.01.2006, i.e., within the notice period the petitioner No.1 company made payment of Rs.1,04,588/- against the four dishonored cheques in the form of 4 demand drafts in lieu of 4 dishonoured cheques which were duly received by the petitioner No. 2 on 16.01.2006. In their letter dated 16.01.2006 the petitioner No. 1 company also sought for time for payment of balance amount of the 2 dishonoured cheques and ultimately on 01.03.2006 the petitioners made such payments by issuing two fresh cheques bearing No. 083060 dated 08.03.2006 for Rs. 26,147/- and cheque No. 083061 dated 15.03.2006 for Rs. 26,147/- in lieu of the remaining two dishonoured cheques. The said cheques were delivered to the Opposite Party No. 2 through their letter No. DRSI/37/2005-06 dated 01.03.2006 which were duly received and encashed. Thus the petitioner company paid the entire sum as demanded under the said demand notice but the opposite parties have filed the criminal case against them for non-payment of such amount which is not legally tenable. Learned Lawyer for the opposite party on the contrary has contended that such belated payment after issue of demand notice and filing of the case cannot exonerate the petitioners herein from their criminal liability. At best the same conduct may be treated as a mitigating circumstance to be taken into account at the time of awarding sentence if the criminal proceeding ultimately culminates into a conviction. He has referred to and relied upon the following principles laid down in: i) 2001 C.Cr.LR (SC) 235 (Rajneesh Aggarwal vs. Amit J. Bhalla); ii) 2004 SCO (Cri) 353 (State of M.P. vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta and Ors.); iii) 2005 SCC (Cri) 1975 (S. M. S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Neeta Bhalla and Anr.); iv) 2008(1) C.Cr.LR (Cai) 486 (Budhmal Bhansali @ B. Bhansali vs. The State of West Bengal and Anr.) and v) 2008(3) SCC (Cri) 118 (Paresh P. Rajda vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr.). 3. LEARNED Lawyer for the Opposite Party No.1 has also endorsed the submissions so made by the learned Lawyer for the Opposite Party No. 2. 4. UNDER the circumstances the points for consideration are (a) whether the instant criminal proceeding is maintainable after receipt of full payment as per demand notice in law and (b) whether cognizance taken by the learned Court below on the testimony of the de facto complainant is sustainable in law. 4. UNDER the circumstances the points for consideration are (a) whether the instant criminal proceeding is maintainable after receipt of full payment as per demand notice in law and (b) whether cognizance taken by the learned Court below on the testimony of the de facto complainant is sustainable in law. There is no denial of the fact that one of the directors who was not actually in charge of the day to day affairs of the petitioner No. 1 company and died on 03.08.1995 while another director resigned on 28.11.1996, i.e., before cause of action for the present criminal proceeding arose. Therefore, both of them cannot be vicariously liable for the alleged criminal offence. 5. IT further appears from the order dated 29.03.2008 passed by the learned Court below in Case No. C/2025 of 2006 that a petition was made in this respect on behalf of the accused persons praying for their discharge but the learned Court below has rejected such prayer on the ground that the case was filed on 09.03.2006 and after examination of complainant under section 200 Cr.P.C. process had already been issued against all the accused persons. So as per the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Adalat Prasad case, the Trial Court has no jurisdiction to drop the case against the accused persons after issuing summons to them on completion of enquiry under section 200 Cr. PC. Learned Lawyer tor the petitioner herein has contended that though the learned Trial Judge is justified in rejecting such prayer for want of statutory power the Hon'ble Apex Court can now consider the same issue under section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of the process of law. 6. IT has been set at rest by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Suman Sethi vs. Ajay Kumar Churiwal and Anr., 2000(2) SCC 380 that if the cheque amount is paid within the notice period or before the complaint is filed, the legal liability under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ceases to be operative and for the recovery of other demands such as compensation, costs, interests etc., separate proceeding would lie. From the facts and surrounding circumstances of this case it will appear that the demand notice was served upon the accused on 02.01.2006 and they made payment of Rs.1,04,588/- in the form of a demand draft on 16.01.2006, i.e., within the stipulated period of 15 days. They also made the balance payment on 01.03.2006 by cheques which were encashed by the complainant and thereafter the present complaint was filed on 09.03.2006. Thus it is apparent on the face of record that the instant complaint was lodged after making full payment of the amount mentioned in the demand notice and as such relying upon the above principle I hold that the instant proceeding under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not sustainable in law and continuation of such proceeding will be mere abuse of the process of law. 7. FROM the order dated 29.03.2008 of the learned Trial Court I find that the case against the Accused No. 3, Banwar Lal Dave, since deceased, was filed for ever as per his order dated 04.05.2007 and as such does not require any review or reconsideration. As regards Accused No. 4, it appears that he has resigned on 28.11.1996 and the same was communicated to the registrar of companies on 10.12.1996. FROM paragraph 4 of the present revisional application it will appear that the dishonoured cheques were issued in between 01.07.2005 and 01.12.2005 i.e., while he was acting as director. In view of my findings made above I think that it is now immaterial to consider whether he was actually in charge of day to day affairs of the company from July, 2005 to December, 2005 as alleged in the complaint. After careful consideration of the matter I hold that since the entire payment was made before initiation of criminal proceeding, continuation of the same against all the accused will be mere abuse of the process of law in view of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Suman Sethi cited above and the principles referred to and relied upon by the learned Lawyer for opposite party as in paragraph 3 above have no relevancy in the facts and circumstances of this case. Therefore, prevent such abuse of the process of law the instant proceeding is accordingly quashed and the accused petitioners are discharged and released from their respective bail bonds. Therefore, prevent such abuse of the process of law the instant proceeding is accordingly quashed and the accused petitioners are discharged and released from their respective bail bonds. The revisional application is thus disposed of. 8. URGENT photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the respective parties, upon compliance of all necessary formalities.