IMPORTANT POINT
If complaint is found to be premature, it can await maturity or be returned to complainant for presentation later on.

H.R. Panwar, J.—By the instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the order dated 11.5.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Anupgarh (for short ‘the revisional Court’ hereinafter) inn Criminal Revision No.57 of 2008 has been challenged by the petitioner whereby the Revisional Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 17.9.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Anupgarh (for short ‘the Trial Court’ hereinafter) in Criminal Complaint Case No.628 of 2007 taking cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the Act’ hereinafter).

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the orders passed by both the Courts.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the accused petitioner that the order taking cognizance dated 17.9.2007 is premature and therefore, the complaint and the proceeding thereunder under Section 138 of the Act are not maintainable.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 supported the orders impugned.

5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. I have carefully gone through the record of the Trial Court also.

6. The respondent No.2 filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act on 7.9.2007 alleging therein that the petitioner issued a cheque being Cheque No.126953 dated 15.8.2007 for a sum of Rs.1,22,000 against the loan advanced by her to the accused petitioner. The cheque was presented to the banker being “The Ganganagar Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Branch Anupgarh” on 17.8.2007 and the same returned unpaid on the ground that in the account of the account holder there is insufficient amount to honour the cheque. A memo of dishonour of cheque was issued by the respondent’s banker returning cheque therewith. A registered notice demanding the cheque amount was given to the petitioner by the respondent No.2 through her counsel on 29.8.2007 requiring the petitioner to pay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The said notice returned on 31.8.2007 and the complaint came to be filed on 7.9.2007. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the period of 15 days requiring the petitioner to pay the cheque amount did not expire on the date of filing of the complaint i.e. on 7.9.2007 since the registered notice is dated 29.8.2007 and 15 days period though required to be computed from the date of receipt of such notice, but even otherwise if the notice is said to have been received back on 31.8.2007 then the 15 days period is required to expire for giving cause of action upto 15.9.2007 and complaint could have only been filed on 16.9.2007 or thereafter within statutory period and therefore, the complaint is premature. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even up till date the cheque amount has not been paid by the petitioner to the respondent No. 2.

7. This controversy came to be considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narsingh Das Tapadia v. Goverdhan Das Paltani &Anr.1 In that case, the respondent borrowed Rs.2,30,000 from the appellant and issued a post-dated cheque in his favour. On 6.10.1994, the cheque was dishonoured by the bank due to “insufficient funds”. The appellant therein served a notice upon the respondent on 26.10.1994 intimating him of the bouncing of the cheque and demanding repayment of the amount. The respondent therein did not respond. Therefore, the appellant therein filed a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act on 8.11.1994. The complaint was returned due to some defects therein. After the same was referred the Court took cognizance on 17.11.1994. The Trial Court therein found the respondent to be guilty and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for six months. The appellate Court upheld the decision but the High Court set aside the conviction on the ground that the complaint, having been filed wit