Dr. (Mrs.) Sarojnei Saksena, J. - The petitioner has filed this petition under section 482, Cr. P.C. to quash the complaint filed against him under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and under section 420 IPC, in which summoning order has also been passed against him on October 12, 1989.

2.The respondent-complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner purchased goods from the respondent and issued two post-dated cheques dated 12.4.1989 for Rs. 30,000/- and dated 8.6.1989 for Rs 3. 33,051.94. The petitioner also executed an agreement in favour of the respondent. When these cheques we're presented in the bank for encashment they were bounced by the bank and the remark given was "Refer to drawer". The respondent gave a notice to the petitioner to make the payment, but despite this when no payment was made he filed the complaint against the petitioner on July 18, 1989. After recording preliminary evidence, the trial Magistrate passed the impugned summoning order.

3. The petitioner's learned counsel contended that no notice was given to the petitioner regarding cheque dated June 8, 1989, for Rs. 33,051,94, when it was dishonoured by the bank. The cheque for Rs. 30,000/- was presented in the bank on April 14, 1989, and it was dishonoured and returned on April 15, 1988, but notice with regard to this cheque was given on May 11, 1989, i.e. beyond 15 days from the date of return of this cheque. Thereafter complaint was filed on July 18, 1989. Thus neither the notice was given within 15 days from the date of dishonour of the cheque nor complaint was filed within the statutory period as laid down in section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence the complaint is liable to be quashed.

4. Petitioner's learned counsel further contended that the controversy between the parties is of civil nature. If the petitioner has purchased certain goods from the respondent and has not paid its price or the cheque issued by him could not be honoured by the bank, it doses not amount to an act of cheating. Hence, even prima facie offence under section 420 IPC is not made out. He further pointed out that the respondent has already filed civil suit for the recovery of this amount against the petitioners. To support his above contentions, he has relied on Vinay Mehara v. State of Haryana1, Rakesh Nemkumar Porwal v. Narayan Dhondu Jeg lekar2, and Subhash Chander Goyal v. Siri Pal Jain.

The respondents learned counsel contended that so far as the dates are concerned, even in the complaint it is not mentioned as to when the complainant received the information that the cheque of Rs. 30,000/- is not encashed. The documents which the petitioner has filed along with the petition were not filed in the Court below. No doubt, notice was given on May 11, 1989, but whether it is beyond the statutory period of 15 days or not is a question of fact which is to be enquired by the trial Court. The complaint was filed on July 18, 1989, but even the petitioner has not alleged as to when he received the notice dated May 11,1989, because cause of action will arise to the complainant on receipt of the notice by the petitioner and after that the period of limitation will start running. When the cheques were issued by the petitioner and they were dishonoured by the bank, the complaint filed by the respondent is competent under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Even if the respondent has filed a civil suit, that ill not make the criminal complaint untenable because criminal proceedings cannot be quashed on the ground that civil suit already been filed. Civil suit and criminal proceedings are independent and not alternative remedies. So far as the offence under Section 420 IPC is concerned, he contends that the petitioner issued two cheques of 30.000/- and Rs. 33,051.94 for making payment for the goods purchased by him from the respondent, but he had a dishonest intention of not making the payment; therefore, both th