3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the instant case the cheque in question was issued by the applicant herein as a security to the business transactions between the parties, however, without there being any liability the same has been mis-utilized by the opposite party no.2 and has been presented for encashment, which was dishonored and after initial dishonor of the cheque, the opposite party no.2 had sent a legal demand notice, which was returned unserved to the applicant. Subsequent thereto, he has again presented the cheque for encashment and again, it was dishonored. Thereafter, again the second legal demand notice was sent, which was served and thereafter the instant complaint case has been filed by the opposite party no.2. Learned counsel for the applicant relying upon the judgement of the Apex Court in Tameeshwar Vaishnav vs. Ramvishal gupta : AIR 2010 SC 1209 , submits that once after dishonor of cheque a legal demand notice was sent, then, the cause of action arises, therefore, it is not permissible for the opposite party no.2 to represent the cheque after the cause of action has arisen in the instant case. Therefore, the complaint on the basis of the second dishonor and second legal demand notice is not maintainable. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant seeks quashing of the entire proceedings of the instant complaint case.
