JUDGMENT 1. 1. This Misc. petition under Section 482. Criminal Procedure Code has been filed against the proceedings pending in Case No. 440/2001 for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short "the Act"). 2. The contention of the present petitioner is that the complainant-respondent No. 2 filed a complaint before the concerned Court under Section 138 of the Act stating therein that the complainant had sent a notice to the present petitioner, which was received back with the remark "N.D." and hence notice has never been served upon the petitioner and the entire proceedings should be quashed. Learned trial Court has not considered the fact that notice has never been received by the present petitioner. He has further submitted that during the course of proceedings, the petitioner has submitted a pay-order of disputed cheque amount and prayed to the trial Court that entire proceedings should be dropped but the application was dismissed by the trial Court and the revision petition has also been dismissed. It has thus been submitted that when the payment has already been made and no notice has been served on him, therefore, the proceedings are abuse of process and should be quashed. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the order taking cognizance dated 10.8.2001 and the order of the revisional Court dated 14.8.2002 are not assailed in the present petition and the submissions present petitioner are misconceived. At the same time, he has submitted that deposit of amount does not by itself absolve the accused from the liability of offence and he has relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Rajneesh Aggarwal v. Amit J.Bhalla. AIR 2001 SC 518 , wherein it has been held as under: "Once the offence of dishonour of cheque is committed, any payment made subsequent thereto will not absolve the accused drawer of the liability of criminal offence though in the matter of awarding of sentence, it may have some effect on the Court trying the offence. But by no stretch of imagination, a criminal proceeding could be quashed on account of deposit of money in the Court or that an order of quashing of criminal proceedings, which is otherwise unsustainable in law, could be sustained because of the deposit of money in this Court." 4. But by no stretch of imagination, a criminal proceeding could be quashed on account of deposit of money in the Court or that an order of quashing of criminal proceedings, which is otherwise unsustainable in law, could be sustained because of the deposit of money in this Court." 4. There is no dispute about this legal proposition that deposit of amount itself will not absolve the accused from criminal liability. But here, the present petition has been preferred under Section 482. Criminal Procedure Code and when the original order dated 10.8.2001 is perse illegal, the proceedings could not be continued. The present petitioner has relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Shakti Travel & Tours v. State of Bihar & Anr., (2002) 9 SCC 415 : (2011 AIR SCW 2307) , wherein it has been held as under: "The accused who is the appellant, assails the order of the High Court refusing to quash the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The only ground on which the learned counsel for the appellant prays for quashing of the complaint is that on the assertions made in para 8 of the complaint, it must be held that notice has not been served and, therefore, an application under Section 138 could not have been maintained. Undoubtedly, the accused has it right to pay the money within 15 days from the date of service of notice and only when it fails to pay, is it open for the complainant to file a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. That being the position and in the complaint itself having not been mentioned that the notice has been served, on the assertions made in para 8, the complainant itself is not maintainable. We accordingly quash the complaint." Looking at the above legal position and the facts of the present case when the respondent No. 2 himself had come with a case that notice has never been served, the cognizance taken against the present petitioner and the continuation of proceedings are abuse of process and liable to be quashed.Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the proceedings in Criminal Complaint Case No. 440/2001 pending before the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. No. 2. No. 2. Jaipur City, Jaipur are hereby quashed.However, it is directed that the cheque amount, which has been deposited in the trial Court, should be given to the complainant-respondent No. 2.Petition allowed. *******