As per case facts, Kotak Mahindra Bank granted a term loan to KRPM Infrastructure. The petitioners were guarantors and one was a director. Undated cheques were given as security. The ... bank presented these cheques, which were dishonored. The bank filed complaints under Section 138 NI Act and Section 420 IPC. Petitioners challenged these orders, arguing that security cheques were presented without demand or loan recall, despite regular EMI payments, and after an alleged expiry of cheque validity. They also contended that the bank unilaterally revised EMIs and applied compound interest, and failed to issue a prior demand notice. The question arose whether presenting security cheques without prior demand or loan recall, despite ongoing repayments and loan restructuring, was a valid basis for Section 138 NI Act proceedings, especially when the agreement required specific notice of default. Finally, the court concluded that a prior notice of demand to the borrower was mandatory before presenting security cheques, as stipulated. The bank failed to prove default. Continuing complaints would abuse the legal process as the outstanding amount was addressed and the agreement subsisting. Therefore, the complaints were quashed.