Typographical errors in legal notices do not invalidate a cheque bouncing prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, as factual disputes necessitate evidentiary hearings.

JUDGMENT :

PRANJAL DAS, J.

1. Heard Mr. J. I. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. N. Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The instant application has been filed under section 528 of the BNSS ,2023 by the petitioner, Anamul Haque seeking setting aside and quashing of the entire proceeding of NI case No. 25 of 2023 pending before the learned court of Additional CJM, Cachar, Silchar.

3. The facts in a nutshell are that the sole respondent, Nilufa Sultana Barbhuiya is stated to have issued a cheque in favour of the petitioner, Anamul Haque of Rs.3 (three) lakhs which was however, dishonored due to alleged insufficiency of funds. Thereafter, the complainant issued a notice and after the expiry of the statutory period of 15 days, filed the complaint dated 20.01.2023.

4. The complainant also submitted initial deposition by way of evidence on affidavit of herself as PW-1. Vide order dated 02.09.2023, the Court of the learned Additional CJM, Cachar, Silchar was pleased to take cognizance by issuing summoning order. The petitioner side has contended that there are several discrepancies in the case of the complainant and that, the entire proceedings pending before the learned trial court are liable to be quashed.

5. Heard Mr. J. I. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner invoking the inherent powers of this court in seeking the aforesaid relief, who submitted that the complaint has been filed against Anamul Haque Laskar though his actual name is Anamul Haque. It is further contented that in the legal notice issued by the complainant before initiating the proceeding also, his name has been written as Anamul Haque Laskar. It is also stated and submitted that in para 1 of the said legal notice, the account number has been mentioned as 2083697005 and that the same is not the bank account number of the petitioner/accused.

6. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the father's name of the petitioner has also been wrongly written as Mudassir Muktar Laskar instead of Mudassir Ahmed Laskar. Another contention of the petitioner side is that in the legal notice, the receipt which is one of the conditional facts for granting cause of action in a cheque bouncing proceeding, was sent to the wrong person with a wrong cheque number and never received by the petitioner.

7. In this backdrop, it is submitted that the cause of action never arose in the instant case as required by the relevant provisions under the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred as NI Act). Accordingly, the learned counsel representing the petitioner side contends and submits that the case of the complainant/respondent suffers from lack of cause of action and fatal errors and hence, the prosecution in its entirety should be set aside and quashed.

8. Heard Ms. N. Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent/ complainant. The respondent complainant submits through her learned counsel that the petitioner and the complainant are relatives and acquaintances and the surname Laskar happens to be their family name, which was also written by the petitioner but subsequently, he dropped that family name Laskar. It is contended that the petitioner has not denied issuance of the cheque and the cheque number is also not in dispute. It is further contended that the apparent error in the middle name of the petitioner's father is a typographical error; that the account number given in the notice also suffered from a typographical error and that the correct account number finds mention in the initial depos