Proper service of statutory notice is essential before issuing process in cheque dishonour cases; inaccuracies in the address must be scrutinized to uphold legal standards.

ORDER :

Devashis Baruah, J.

1. Heard Dr. Farrukh Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Arun Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The instant proceedings have been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'The Code') for setting aside and quashing the order dated 17.05.2023, along with criminal proceedings arising out of Case No. 02/2023 filed under Section 138 , read with 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act of 1881), pending before the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Peren.

3. From the materials on record, and more particularly, the complaint so enclosed to the present petition, it reveals that in discharge of certain alleged debt, the petitioners herein, who are the accused had issued four cheques to the complainant. Out of those four cheques, one cheque bearing Cheque No. 291328 dated 04.02.2023 for Rupees Forty Lakhs, was presented by the complainant in his bank account maintained in the Jalukie Branch of the State Bank of India. The complainant, thereupon, came to learn that the said cheque was dishonoured and returned unpaid with the remark "Payment stopped by the drawer", by Return Memo No. 000725/002002/430 dated 08.02.2023.

4. It is also seen from the complaint that thereupon, a statutory Legal Notice dated 02.03.2023 was issued to the petitioners herein, calling upon the petitioners to pay the said amount of Rupees Forty Lakhs in respect to the cheque in question, within 15 (fifteen) days from the date of receipt of the said Notice. The said Legal Notice was sent by Speed Post. It was specifically mentioned in Paragraph-17 of the complaint that despite mentioning the last known address of the accused persons (the petitioners herein) in that said Legal Notice, the same was returned on account of the addresses being inaccurate. It was also mentioned that even after the best endeavours by the complainant, the current address of the petitioners could not be traced, and it is under such circumstances the complainant had filed the complaint.

5. It is further seen from the documents so enclosed to the complaint that the complainant enclosed the copy of the bank statement of the complainant, the original cheque No. 291328 drawn on State Bank of India, the original Return Memo dated 08.02.2023, copy of the Legal Notice dated 02.03.2023 and the original Speed Post receipt dated 03.03.2023 along with its tracking report. Further to that, in the list of witnesses, the name of the complainant was mentioned and it was further stated that any other witnesses with the permission of the court. It is also relevant to mention that along with the complaint, an affidavit was filed by the complainant affirming what has been stated in the complaint. Paragraph-14 of the said evidence of affidavit is pari materia to Paragraph-17 of the complaint.

6. The record further reveals that the said complaint was filed on 11.04.2023. It has been brought to the attention of this Court that on 17.04.2023, the said complaint was taken up by the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Peren. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/respondent, Mr. Arun Sharma, have placed the order dated 17.04.2023, which is kept on record and marked with the letter-'X'. A perusal of the said order reveals that as the complainant was absent with steps, the complainant was directed to be present on the next date of hearing for recording his examination under Section 200 of the Code