The main legal point established is the interpretation of the requirements for a valid demand notice under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and the application of Section 142(b) to determine the timeliness of a complaint.

G. P. Mittal, J.

1. By virtue of this Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) the Petitioner seeks quashing of the criminal complaint case No.819/2012 and the summoning order dated 12.07.2012 passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM), Karkardooma Court, Delhi.

2. Before adverting to the grounds raised in the Petition, I would in brief narrate the facts leading to the filing of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the N.I. Act). According to the Respondent (the Complainant before the MM), three cheques for `30 lacs, 20 lacs and 10 lacs drawn on Allahabad Bank and ICICI Bank respectively were issued by the Petitioner in favour of the Respondent towards discharge of his liability for a loan of `60 lacs. After issuing the three cheques in favour of the Respondent, the Petitioner fraudulently instructed his Banker to “stop payment” in respect of the said cheques, since the Petitioner did not have sufficient funds in his account. When the earlier said cheques were presented, the same were dishonoured. The Respondent, therefore, issued a demand notice dated 24.05.2012 calling upon the Petitioner to make the payment of the cheque amount failing which the Respondent shall be compelled to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the N.I. Act) and under Section 420 IPC. The payment having not been made within a period of 15 days of the receipt of the notice, the Respondent filed a complaint in the Court of MM on 05.07.2012.

3. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that although the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sadanandan Bhadran v. Madhavan Sunil Kumar (1998) 6 SCC 514 has been overruled by a three Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in MSR Leathers v. S. Palaniappan & Anr. Criminal Appeal No.261-264 of 2002, decided on 26.09.2012 and it has been held that the holder of the cheque can defer prosecution when he expects the drawer to make arrangement for the funds, yet, the cheque has to be presented again in the Bank for a subsequent cause of action.

4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner argues that Respondent had issued a handwritten notice dated 27.04.2012 which would have been received by the Petitioner on 29.04.2012 and on failure to make the payment within 15 days i.e. by 14.05.2012 the cause of action would have arisen in favour of the Respondent to file a Complaint. Under Section 142 (2) of the N.I. Act, the Respondent was under obligation to file a complaint within a period of one month from the date on which the cause of action arose to file a complaint. Thus, the complaint could have been filed the Complaint at the most by 14th June, 2012. The Complaint in the instant case was filed only on 05.07.2012 which was clearly barred under Section 142 (b) of the Act. The learned counsel urges that the subsequent notice dated 24.05.2012 does not give a fresh period of limitation to the Respondent to file a complaint on 05.07.2012.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent relies on MSR Leathers (supra) and urged that the holder of a cheque can issue successive notices and on failure of the drawer to make the payment, a fresh cause of action would ensue to the holder of the cheque entitling him to file a complaint within a period of one month from the date when the cause of action arose to file a complaint.

6. The learned counsel for the Respondent vehemently canvasses that the notice dated 27.04.2012 was not a notice as envisaged under Section 138 of the N.I. Act as it did not make any mention of payment of the cheque amount and neither gave 15 days time period to make the payment. On the other hand, it simply stated for payment of loan amount along with interest immediately. There was not even a whisper that a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act shall be instituted on failure to make the payment of the cheque amount.

7. The law laid down in Sadanandan Bhadran that