Judgment : This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-sole accused in C.C.No.95 of 2008 on the file of XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. 3. The brief facts of the case are that earlier to the present case which is sought to be quashed, the second respondent filed C.C.No.6 of 2002 on the file of the VI Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad against the petitioner alleging that the cheque issued by the petitioner for an amount of Rs.5 lakhs in satisfaction of the legally enforceable debt was bounced. When the said case was pending, the petitioner and the second respondent/complainant entered into an agreement wherein it was agreed upon between them that the petitioner-accused had to pay the second respondent/complainant an amount of Rs.1,75,000/-on or before 25.03.2004 and after receipt of the same, the second respondent had to withdraw the criminal case pending against the petitioner. Pursuant to the said agreement, the petitioner-accused issued a cheque bearing No. 454003 dated 25.03.2004 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Hyderabad. When the cheque was presented for collection, it was dishonoured. Thereafter, the second respondent filed C.C.No.95 of 2008 which is now pending on the file of the Court of XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The present petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.p.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.95 of 2008. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the impugned cheque was not issued in satisfaction of any legally enforceable debt or liability and therefore, the complaint itself is not maintainable and he seeks to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.95 of 2008. 5. Admittedly, as the cheque issued by the petitioner for Rs.1,75,000/-bounced, the second respondent/complainant continued the prosecution of C.C.No.6 of 2002 on the file of VI Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, but ultimately it was concluded holding that there was no legally enforceable debt or liability from the date of issuance of cheque in the said case. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent-complainant on the other hand submits that since the petitioner-accused agreed to pay an amount of Rs.1,75,000/-to the second respondent-complainant for the purpose of withdrawing earlier case and the cheque issued in that regard was bounced, there certainly exists legally enforceable debt and liability and therefore, the complaint shall not be quashed. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent-complainant on the other hand submits that since the petitioner-accused agreed to pay an amount of Rs.1,75,000/-to the second respondent-complainant for the purpose of withdrawing earlier case and the cheque issued in that regard was bounced, there certainly exists legally enforceable debt and liability and therefore, the complaint shall not be quashed. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused relied on LALIT KUMAR SHARMA AND ANOTHER v STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER ( (2008) 5 SCC 638 )in support of his contention. In the said case, the accused issued two cheques which were bounced, thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint petition against him. There was a compromise between the parties, according to which the accused undertook to pay certain amount to the complainant in which event the complainant had to withdraw the complaint petition. But, as the complaint relating to the cheque for an amount of Rs.5,02,050/-issued by the complainant had not been withdrawn by the complainant, ultimately, the accused was convicted by the trial Court. Another complaint was also filed for dishonour of the cheque which was subsequently issued pursuant to the compromise between the parties. Since the accused in the earlier complaint was convicted by the trial Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court took the view that it cannot be said that there is a legally enforceable debt in relation to the cheque issued pursuant to the compromise between the parties. The Supreme Court proceeded on the premise that as the accused persons were already convicted in the complaint case in respect of which subsequent compromise was entered into, the cheque issued by one of them for the second time cannot be said to have been issued in discharge of any legally enforceable debt or liability. 8. The facts of the present case are distinguishable from the facts of the above case before the Supreme Court relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. In the instant case, owing to the breach of agreement by the petitioner-accused, the second respondent-complainant had not withdrawn earlier complaint. Merely because the case was concluded and ended in acquittal, it cannot be said that there is no legally enforceable debt or liability in respect of the cheque issued in pursuance of the agreement in the instant case. In the instant case, owing to the breach of agreement by the petitioner-accused, the second respondent-complainant had not withdrawn earlier complaint. Merely because the case was concluded and ended in acquittal, it cannot be said that there is no legally enforceable debt or liability in respect of the cheque issued in pursuance of the agreement in the instant case. I am of the considered view that this matter requires a detailed trial and the criminal case cannot be quashed at the threshold. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the criminal petition is dismissed.