IMPORTANT POINT
Validity of the legal notice and compliance with statutory time period for the complaint to be valid.

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Banerjee, J. - The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [CrPC] seeking quashing of the Complaint Case being CT Case No.3301/2017 titled as Ranjeet Begwani v. M/s Samkia Enterprises & Ors., filed by the respondent/ complainant against the petitioners/ accused under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [NI Act], pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act) West-04, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi [learned MM].

2. As per the facts, on 14.12.2016, the petitioner nos.2 and 3, on behalf of all the petitioners, had handed over to the respondent four post dated cheques being cheque no.069291 dated 15.12.2016 for Rs.4,00,000/-, cheque no.069292 dated 15.01.2017 for Rs.4,00,000/-, cheque no.069293 dated 15.02.2017 for Rs.4,00,000/- and cheque no.069294 dated 15.03.2017 for Rs.4,50,000/-, collectively for an amount of Rs.16,50,000/, all drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, Old Rajinder Nagar Branch, Delhi. Upon immediate presentation of the first cheque, bearing no.069291 dated 15.12.2016 for Rs.4,00,000/- by the respondent, it was returned dishonoured for the reason "Payment Stopped". Thereafter, on the assurance of the petitioners, all the three remaining cheques were also presented by the respondent, but they too were returned dishonoured vide return memo dated 24.03.2017 with the same reason i.e., "Payment Stopped". In consequence thereof, a Legal Notice dated 17.04.2017 was issued by the respondent, however, since it was returned undelivered, the respondent proceeded to file a complaint against the petitioners for not honouring the instruments valued at Rs.16,50,000/- before the learned MM.

3. After issuing summons to the petitioners on 30.05.2017, notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was framed qua petitioner no.2 on 25.03.2019 by the learned MM. Thereafter, though the petitioners filed an application on 02.19.2019 seeking quashing of the said complaint on the ground that the Legal Notice did not represent the correct amount, however, the same was withdrawn by them on 05.01.2023. This resulted in filing of the present petition for quashing of the subject complaint by the petitioners on 09.02.2023.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in both, the Legal Notice as also the subject complaint, the respondent has deliberately failed to mention that the cheque no.069291 for Rs.4,00,000/- dated 15.12.2016 stood dishonoured way back on 23.12.2016 and that the same was reflected in the account statement of the respondent. He thus submitted that as the Legal Notice in respect of the said first cheque was time barred, the common Legal Notice for all the four cheques did not fulfil the requirements of Section 138 NI Act, and hence the subject complaint emanating from the said Legal Notice was not maintainable and is liable to be quashed.

5. Then, relying upon Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel v. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel, (2023) 1 SCC 578, Rahul Builders v. Arihant Fertilizers & Chemicals, (2008) 2 SCC 321 and K.R. Indira v. G. Adinarayana (Dr), (2003) 8 SCC 300, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Legal Notice cannot be taken to be only qua the three subsequent cheques as the same was pertaining to the entire amount of Rs.16,50,000/-, which included the amount of all the four cheques.

6. Besides that, learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that all the four cheques forming part of the subject complaint were issued by the petitioner no.2 from his individual account and in his individual capacity and they do not pertain to the account of the petitioner no.1/ partnership firm and the petitioner no.3 was neither the signatory of the said cheques, nor the said cheques pertain to her in any manner. Thus, relying upon Dilip Hariramani v. Bank of Baroda, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 579, he submitted that the petitioner no.1 partnership firm and the petitioner no.3 cannot be held vicariously liable for the acts of