Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows: The right of the complainant to present the same cheque multiple times within the validity period is permissible and established by law (!) (!) . The period of limitation for filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not counted from the initial presentation of the cheque but from the date the bank informs the drawer of the dishonor (!) (!) . The legal notice for demand must be issued within 30 days of receipt of the information from the bank regarding the dishonor of the cheque (!) (!) . After the dishonor of the cheque, the notice period and the subsequent failure to make payment within 15 days are essential for establishing the cause of action (!) (!) . The complaint becomes not maintainable if the legal notice is issued beyond the prescribed 30 days from the receipt of information about the dishonor (!) (!) . The date on which the complainant received information about the dishonor (whether from the bank memo or via other means) is crucial for determining whether the legal notice was issued timely (!) (!) (!) . In the case at hand, the complainant was found to have received information about the dishonor on the date of the second presentation, and the legal notice was issued after the expiry of the 30-day period, rendering the complaint not maintainable (!) (!) . The act of presenting the cheque again after the initial dishonor is lawful and does not affect the validity of the subsequent legal proceedings, provided the legal notice and other conditions are met within the prescribed time frames (!) (!) . In summary, the legal document emphasizes the importance of timely legal notice following the dishonor of a cheque, the permissible multiple presentations of the same cheque within its validity, and the critical nature of the date of receipt of information about dishonor for the purpose of limitation. Failure to adhere to these procedural requirements results in the dismissal of the complaint.

Kamlesh Kumar vs State of Bihar - 2013 Supreme(SC) 1119

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2013 Supreme(SC) 1119

K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, A.K.SIKRI
Kamlesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

The right of the complainant to present the same cheque multiple times within the validity period is permissible and established by law (!) (!) .
The period of limitation for filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not counted from the initial presentation of the cheque but from the date the bank informs the drawer of the dishonor (!) (!) .
The legal notice for demand must be issued within 30 days of receipt of the information from the bank regarding the dishonor of the cheque (!) (!) .
After the dishonor of the cheque, the notice period and the subsequent failure to make payment within 15 days are essential for establishing the cause of action (!) (!) .
The complaint becomes not maintainable if the legal notice is issued beyond the prescribed 30 days from the receipt of information about the dishonor (!) (!) .
The date on which the complainant received information about the dishonor (whether from the bank memo or via other means) is crucial for determining whether the legal notice was issued timely (!) (!) (!) .
In the case at hand, the complainant was found to have received information about the dishonor on the date of the second presentation, and the legal notice was issued after the expiry of the 30-day period, rendering the complaint not maintainable (!) (!) .
The act of presenting the cheque again after the initial dishonor is lawful and does not affect the validity of the subsequent legal proceedings, provided the legal notice and other conditions are met within the prescribed time frames (!) (!) .

In summary, the legal document emphasizes the importance of timely legal notice following the dishonor of a cheque, the permissible multiple presentations of the same cheque within its validity, and the critical nature of the date of receipt of information about dishonor for the purpose of limitation. Failure to adhere to these procedural requirements results in the dismissal of the complaint.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Sikri, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant herein is facing trial in the complaint filed by respondent No.2 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act for short). According to the appellant, criminal complaint is not maintainable and no such proceedings could be launched against him. He, therefore, approached the High Court of Judicature at Patna in the form of a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order dated 28.10.2009 whereby the Court of Magistrate had taken cognizance of the complaint filed by the respondent No.2 issued summons to the appellant. This petition, however, has been dismissed by the High Court vide impugned judgment dated 1.11.2012. The solitary reason given by the High Court while dismissing the petition is that trial has already commenced and two witnesses have already been examined and discharged. Hence, at this stage it would not be proper to interfere with the trial. Various contentions which were raised by the appellant questioning the very maintainability of the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act are not gone into by the High Court with the observations that those contentions would be av

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

PADMAJA VS STATE OF KERALA - 2014 0 Supreme(Ker) 720: Cited in support of the case ("in support of his case"); positive reliance on Kamlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another 2013(4) KHC 888 and K.A.Anto and Another 2012(3) KHC 887.

Padmaja VS State of Kerala - Dishonour Of Cheque (2014): Cited in support ("in support of his case"); mirrors PADMAJA VS STATE OF KERALA - 2014 0 Supreme(Ker) 720 with identical language referencing the same cases.

M. SHASHIKALA VS KRISHNA MURTHY - 2015 0 Supreme(Kar) 66: Principles "laid down" and "reiterated" in KAMLESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR, 2014(2) SCC 424; applied directly to the present case.

P. Surendra Kumar VS Varkeys Retail Ventures Pvt. Ltd. - Dishonour Of Cheque (2015): Direct citation and application of Kamlesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar And Another, (2014) 2 SCC 424; discusses facts and holdings without criticism.

P. Surendra Kumar VS Varkeys Retail Ventures Pvt. Ltd. - Crimes (2015): Direct citation and application of Kamlesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar And Another, (2014) 2 SCC 424; identical context to P. Surendra Kumar VS Varkeys Retail Ventures Pvt. Ltd. - Dishonour Of Cheque (2015).

P. Surendra Kumar VS Varkeys Retail Ventures Pvt. Ltd. - 2015 0 Supreme(Kar) 368: Direct citation and application of KAMLESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER, (2014) 2 SCC 424; discusses cheque dishonour facts.

Ramesh Bansal Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd. VS Madhav Alloys Pvt. Ltd. - 2015 0 Supreme(P&H) 1449: Reliance placed on Kamlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr., 2014(2) SCC 424; listed alongside other cases without negative treatment.

Ramesh Bansal Ispat Udyog Private Limited VS Madhav Alloys Private Limited - 2015 0 Supreme(P&H) 1451: Reliance placed on Kamlesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Another, 2014 (2) SCC 424; positive citation in argument.

SURENDRA BANJARA VS STATE OF U. P. - 2018 0 Supreme(All) 182: "Relying upon the position of law laid down in" Kamlesh Kumar V. State of Bihar and another, 2014 (2) SCC 424; explicit reliance.

Vijay Kumar VS State Of Haryana And Another - 2018 0 Supreme(P&H) 3245: Cited as Kamlesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 1 RCR(Criminal) 332; listed as precedent without qualification.

Amit Kumar Mishra VS State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) - 2020 0 Supreme(Del) 59: Reliance placed on Kamlesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Another, (2014) 2 SCC 424; quotes Supreme Court holding approvingly.

M. Narsingh Rao VS State of Jharkhand - 2021 0 Supreme(Jhk) 735: References judgment in Kamlesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 2 SCC 424; clarifies limitation period based on its observations.

M. G. Mohamed Javid VS Nayeem Hannan - 2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 2051: "Subsequently followed in" (2014) 2 SCC 424 [Kamlesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Another]; quotes holding approvingly.

Subramani Rajbettan VS Saranam Tea Factory, Rep. by its Partner, K. B. Raju - 2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 2147: "Subsequently followed in" (2014) 2 SCC 424 [Kamlesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Another]; quotes holding and cross-references another case.

A. T. Kannan VS State represented by P. Rajasekar, Food Safety Officer, Krishangiri Municipality (i/c), Krishnagiri District - 2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 2571: Cites Kamlesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in (2014) 2 SCC 424; argues based on its holdings.

D. Sanjiv Kumar S/o. Dinesh Prasad Singh VS State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Joint Director II, (Industrial Inspector), Industrial Safety and Health - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 1038: Cites Kamlesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another reported in (2014) 2 SCC 424; notes it held complaint barred under law.

Dhanraj Balkrishna Khond VS Jagannath Sudam Sonawane - 2023 0 Supreme(Bom) 276: Relied upon by advocate for respondent in Kamlesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr.; presented as supporting authority.

Manjeet Singh Dhillan S/o Darshan Singh Dhillan VS Baljinder Singh Rajpal S/o Late Avatar Singh Rajpal - 2024 0 Supreme(Chh) 17: Supreme Court holding in Kamlesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Another, (2014) 2 SCC 424 quoted at Para 8; no criticism.

Manjeet Singh Dhillan VS Baljinder Singh Rajpal - Crimes (2024): Supreme Court holding in Kamlesh Kumar v State of Bihar and Another, (2014) 2 SCC 424 quoted; references prior case without negativity.

Deepak Nagar VS State And Anr - 2024 0 Supreme(Del) 372: Supreme Court holding in Kamlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Anr., (2014) 2 SCC 424 quoted at "15."; approving citation.

Prem Dayal VS Surender Singh Deshta - 2024 0 Supreme(HP) 86: Cited as Kamlesh Kumar vs State of Bihar in list of precedents; notes its relevance to limitation (not in dispute here).

: Cites Kamalesh Kumar ... State of Bihar and Others; supports ruling that barred complaint can be quashed.

MSR LEATHERS VS S. PALANIAPPAN - 2012 7 Supreme 68: Articulates "salutary principles of interpretation" and states "a prosecution based on a second or successive default... should not be impermissible"; appears to state good law principles, possibly from or related to Kamlesh Kumar context, without negative treatment indicators.

2013 Supreme(SC) 1119

K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, A.K.SIKRIKamlesh Kumar – AppellantVersusState of Bihar – Respondent

Cases Referred (1)

Judicial Analysis

K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, A.K.SIKRI
Kamlesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent