Judgment :- The petitioner has come forward with this petition to quash the proceedings in C.C.no.3633 of 2000 pending on the file of the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore. 2. The facts of the case run as follows: The complainant is running a financial business. The accused availed loan under Hire Purchase agreement dated 31.3.1997 from the complainant. As per the agreement, the accused had to repay a sum or Rs.19,57,500/-in 36 monthly instalments. In order to clear the debt, the accused issued a cheque for Rs.54,660/-. When the complainant presented the same before the Bank, it was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Therefore, the complainant issued a statutory notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act demanding the said payment. As there was no reply, the complainant preferred the present complaint and the same was also taken cognizance in C.C.No.3633 of 2000 by the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai. Against the same, the present petition is filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since there is a delay in representing the complaint, the same is barred by limitation. The learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that as the suit in O.S.No.2106 of 2000 is pending before the XIV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, this Court once again need not go into the enquiry of this matter. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the proceedings has to be quashed. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Civil Suit has been filed for different purpose and hence, the same is nothing to do with the present case. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the respondent/complainant has preferred the present petition only under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, that too, after giving statutory notice to the accused. Hence, the learned counsel for the respondent prays that the petition has to be dismissed. 5. From the perusal of the records, it is seen that the cheque has been issued by the accused herself on behalf of the theatre and it has been dishonoured. Thereafter, statutory notice has been issued by the complainant to the accused demanding payment. 6. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that yet another civil suit is pending for recovery, the petitioner has not produced any documents before this Court to establish that both are for similar transaction. 7. Thereafter, statutory notice has been issued by the complainant to the accused demanding payment. 6. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that yet another civil suit is pending for recovery, the petitioner has not produced any documents before this Court to establish that both are for similar transaction. 7. It is seen that cheque has been issued by the petitioner and the same was dishonoured. Therefore default has been committed by the petitioner. Hence, Prima facie case has been made against the petitioner. Therefore, I am of the view that the quashing of proceedings does not arise at this stage. 8. It appears that after filing this petition, NBW has been issued against her by the Magistrate Concerned and thereafter she filed OP.No.6355 of 2002 seeking to dispense with the presence of the accused under Section 317 Cr.P.C. and the same has been dismissed as not pressed by the petitioner. It also appears that the warrant has been recalled. 9. In view of such position, both parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 30.10.2012. 10. With this observation this Criminal Original petition is disposed of.