The cause of action under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises only on the expiry of 15 days mentioned in proviso (c) of the said section.

Petition under S.482 Cr. P.C. is to quash the proceedings in C.C. 471 of 1991 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam. Photo copy of the complaint is Annexure A-4.

2. According to the petitioner, the son of the petitioner had business transaction with the 2nd respondent and the 3rd respondent Sub Inspector of Police who is a friend of the 2nd respondent got the son of the petitioner to the police station and made him execute Annexure A-1 receipt under duress purporting to be one for Rs. 5S,200/-. Then the petitioner was taken to the police station by the 3 rd respondent on 17-4-1991 learning that the petitioner had account with the Union Bank of India, South Chittoor, and the 3rd respondent at the behest of the 2nd respondent made the petitioner to sign a blank cheque leaf under threat and coercion. Later the petitioner received Annexure A-2 notice dated 21-6-199t intimating that steps under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act') would be taken. On receipt of the said notice, petitioner sent Annexure A-3 reply dated 1-7-1991 to the 2nd respondent which he received on 2-7-1991. As per Annexure A-3 it was intimated that there is no obligation for the petitioner to pay any amount as per cheque and also the circumstance under which the cheque was signed, in spite of the same, the second respondent filed Annexure A-4 complaint on 3-8-1991 which was beyond the period of

limitation under S.142 of the Act. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the same. Thereupon the petitioner filed Annexure A-5 petition for discharge, that petition was dismissed by Annexure A-6 order.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner maintained that, no liability was created under the cheque since the same was executed under the circumstances already stated, and he also contended that since the complaint was filed beyond one month of the cause of action, the complaint is barred by limitation as per S.142(b) of the Act.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would deny the alleged circumstance under which the cheque was signed and he would also contend that since the complaint was filed within one month of the expiry of 15 days of the receipt of the notice issued by the petitioner, the complaint is within time.

5. Being a proceeding under S.482 Cr.P.C, disputed question of fact cannot be gone into. The allegation as to the circumstance under which the cheque was signed by the petitioner being disputed question of fact, the same could arise for determination at trial and the second respondent will have to prove the ingridients under S.138 of the Act. The petitioner certainly will be free to substantiate his contention as to the invalidity of the transaction. All that to be mentioned in this connection is, those disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in this proceeding and the same cannot be made a ground for quashing the complaint.

6. As regards the question of limitation, the contention is based on S.142(b) of the Act. S.142 of the Act reads:

"142, Cognisance of offence. -Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),

(a) no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under S.138 except upon a complaint, in writing, made by the payee or, as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque;

(b) such complaint is made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under clause (c) of the proviso to S.138;

(c) no court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under S.138 ",

7. The thrust of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is since Annexure A-3 reply denying liability to pay any amount as per the cheque was received by the 2nd respondent on 2-7-1991 and as the complaint was filed on 3-8-1991, the same being beyond one month of 2-7-1991 is barred by limitation. According to the learned counsel the cause of ac