“The correctness of the decision in Sadanandan’s case was doubted. Three-Judge Bench of this Court in MSR Leathers v. S. Palaniappan held that there is nothing in the provisions of Section 138 of The Act that forbids the holder of the cheque to make successive presentation of the cheque and institute the criminal complaint based on the second or successive dishonour of the cheque on its presentation.
In the present case as pointed out earlier that cheques were presented twice and notices were issued on 31.08.2009 and 25.01.2010. Applying the ratio of MSR Leathers the complaint filed based on the second statutory notice is not barred and the High Court, in our view, ought not to have quashed the criminal complaint.”
– Hon’ble Justice R. Banumathi, M/s. Sicagen India Ltd. v. Mahindra Vadineni, [Criminal Appeal Nos. 26-27 of 2019].