( 1 ) A complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act r/w section 420 IPC is pending against the petitioner before the learned Additional district Munsif Magistrate, Kandukur. The complaint is sought to be quashed on various grounds, some of them refer to the factual aspects of the matter which this Court will not entertain under the provisions of Section 482 Cr. P. C. However, two legal grounds have been taken which will be considered by this Court presently.

( 2 ) ONE of the grounds taken is that the complaint has been filed beyondtime. I have gone through the complaint. The cheque was allegedly issued on 6th March, 1998, it was presented to the banker within six months and it was returned on 9-3-1998 with the endorsement that the accused had closed his account as early as on 4-9-1997. Notice was issued to the accused on 26th march, 1998 for making the payment. Payment was not made and the complaint was made on 8th May, 1998. Since the notice was given on 26th march, 1998 the cause of action would accrue to the complainant on expiry of 15 days clear notice, because within 15 days the accused could make the payment. That would mean the complainant has to wait for taking further action till 10th April, 1998. From 11th April, 1998 onwards he could file the complaint and in terms of Section 142 (b) of N. I. Act complaint has to be made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under clause (c ). In this case, the cause of action arose on llth April, 1998. The complaint has been filed on 8th May, 1998. Therefore, the complaint is filed within time and no interference is needed on this ground.

( 3 ) SECOND aspect of the matter is more important. It has been suggestedthat the cheque was not returned by the banker on account of insufficiency of funds but was returned on account of closure of the account. Since section 138 of N. I. Act does not contemplate a situation where cheque is returned on account of closure of the account, no offence would be attributable to the accused as the cheque had not been returned for insufficiency of funds.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment ofbombay High Court. The Bombay High Court in Om Parkash vs. Smt. Swati girish Bhinde and others considered this question which is being considered by this Court presently. The High Court found;"9. The plain reading of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act makes it clear that the words "either because of the amount standing to the cred it of that account is insufficient or that it exceeds the amount. . . " have been specifically used. It would, therefore, mean that only two contingencies are contemplated and as such, the words-". . either. . or" have been used. It is, therefore, clear that the cheque should be dishonoured either for the insufficiency of the amount or, because it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account. No third contingency or eventuality has been contemplated and the specific clear wording of Section 138 eliminates any third contingency than mentioned in the Section itself. It need not be stated that the cheque" can be d ishonoured for so many reasons and there may be so many eventualities in which the payee is denied payment by the bank. For example, mentioning the date incorrectly or some corrections not initialled or the differences in between the amount mentioned in figures and words are certain other contingencies in which the cheque will be definitely dishonoured and would be returned as unpaid. It is not in respect of any of these contingencies that the dishonour of a cheque has been made penal under Section 138 of the said Act. The submissions on behalf of the petitioners to the effect that the dishonour as in the present case because of the closure of the account should also be held as penal, cannot, therefore, be accepted. "similarly, the Karnataka High Court in a judgment reported in g. F. Hunasikathimath vs. State of Karnataka