IMPORTANT POINT
When the notice is sent by registered post by correctly addressing the drawer of the cheque, the mandatory requirement of issue of notice in terms of Clause (b) of proviso to section 138 of the Act stands complied with.

Vijay Prakash Pathak, J.—This petition under section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer to quash the further proceedings of complaint case No.1202/08, Nawab Singh v. Rakesh Kushwaha, under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), PS Chaubeypur, District Kanpur Dehat and also to quash the impugned summoning order dated 25.06.2007 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge, (Jr. Division)/J.M., Kanpur Dehat in the aforesaid case.

2. The brief facts of the case are that opposite party No.2 Nawab Singh Yadav filed a complaint against the applicant Rakesh Kushwaha under section 138 of the Act alleging therein that on 05.01.2007 the applicant took a loan of Rs. 30,000/- from the complainant in order to complete his business and thereafter the complainant again advanced Rs. 2000/- to him. In total Rs. 32,000/- was borrowed by the applicant, who assured to return the same till 15th of February, 2007. When the applicant did not return the money borrowed, the opposite party, No.2, demanded the same from him, on which the applicant sought further time of 15 days and gave a cheque of Rs.32,000/- of Union Bank of India, Branch Ravatpur, Kanpur, to the opposite party No.2 and told him to encash the same from the Bank after February. The opposite party No.2 waited till 27.03.2007 with a belief that the applicant will return his money in cash instead of cheque given but in vain and on the next day i.e. on 28.03.2007, when he presented the said cheque for encashment in the Bank, aforesaid, the same was dishonoured as sufficient money was not therein the account. Thereafter the opposite party No.2 met the applicant many times for getting his money back but inspite of assurance given, the applicant did not return his money and instead on 10.04.2007, the applicant abused him and threatened to kill him. It is also alleged that a registered notice was also sent by the opposite party No.2 through his Counsel on 11.04.2007, but no reply was given to the same nor any money was returned.

3. The learned Magistrate after taking cognizance of the complaint, recorded the statement of the complainant under section 200, Cr.P.C. and after considering the contents of the complaint, statement of the complainant as well as the documentary evidence i.e. copy of the notice as well as the cheque, prima facie found the offence under section 138 of the Act to be made out against the applicant and accordingly summoned him to face trial for the said offence.

4. Heard Sri Prashant Kumar Singh holding brief of Sri Manvendra Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant, Sri Deepak Gaur, learned Counsel for the opposite party No.2 as well as learned AGA and perused the record.

5. Learned Counsel for the applicant has contended that the learned Magistrate has illegally summoned the applicant to face trial under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act without applying his judicial mind. It is further contended that the opposite party No.2 in his complaint did not mention the date when he presented the cheque for encashment in the Bank nor did he mention the date when he received the information from the Bank-Regarding dishoriour of the cheque. Thus it is submitted that there was no cause of action for the complainant (opposite party No.2) to file the instant complaint. It is further contended that the date of service of notice upon the applicant has not been mentioned in the complaint as required under section 138(c) of the Act and hence for this reason also, no cause of action can be said to have accrued to the complainant to file the present complaint against the applicant.

6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the opposite party No.2 has contended that against the loan liability of Rs.32,000/- against Rakesh Kushwaha (applicant), a cheque payable at Union Bank of India, Branch Ravatpur, Kanpur Dehat was given for repayment, of the loan. The said cheque was presented by opposite party No.2 on 28.03.2007 in hi