The legal notice under section 138 of the N.I. Act serves the purpose of intimating the drawer about the liability to remit the amount, and a literal interpretation of the law should be avoided to prevent miscarriage of justice.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Mehta, J. - By way of the instant petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") the petitioner has prayed that the proceedings in case No. 578/2022, pending before the Special Judge, Negotiable Instruments Act Cases No. 3, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court") be quashed.

2. The premise on which the present petition has been filed is rather unique and intriguing. The facts as goes are that the petitioner, being the authorized signatory of M/s. S.S. & Sons, issued a cheque dated 08.06.2014 bearing No. 631583 drawn on State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Bikaner to the complainant (respondent No. 2 herein).

3. It is to be noted that the cheque in question was drawn for Rs. 7,55,125/- (Rupees Seven Lacs Fifty Five Thousand One Hundred and Twenty-Five) so far as figures/numbers are concerned, but in words such amount, due to inadvertence or otherwise, was inscribed as "Rupees Seven Lacs Fifty Thousand One Hundred Twenty Five Only".

4. When the cheque was presented by the complainant in the Bank for encashment, the Bank (State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur) returned the same with the memo dated 17.06.2014, with the following remark:

"OP. BAL. INSUFFICIENT (opening balance is insufficient)"

5. The complainant issued statutory notice required under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the N.I. Act") to the petitioner on 25.06.2014 and claimed an amount of Rs. 7,55,125/- (rupees seven lacs fifty five thousand one hundred twenty five), as mentioned on the cheque.

6. When the petitioner (drawer of the cheque in question) did not pay the amount as demanded, the complainant proceeded to file a complaint under section 138 of N.I. Act, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 65/2015 (new No. 578/2022).

7. During the pendency of the trial, the petitioner moved an application dated 03.09.2022 and prayed that the proceedings be quashed. A number of grounds were raised but we are presently concerned with two of those grounds - firstly, that the cheque in question bears two different expressions - in figures, Rs. 7,55,125/- and in words, Rs. 7,50,125/- (Seven Lacs Fifty Thousand One Hundred Twenty Five), and secondly, that the legal notice dated 25.06.2014 served by the complainant did not relate to the 'cheque amount'.

8. The application filed by the petitioner came to be rejected by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 20.09.2022, observing inter alia, that petitioner's earlier application on the same count has been rejected and that the proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage on the ground taken by the petitioner as the trial court has taken cognizance for the sum of Rs. 7,50,125/-, which is consistent with the provisions of section 18 of the N.I. Act.

9. The petitioner has approached this Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction oppugning the order aforesaid of the trial Court.

10. Mr. Gurvinder Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the complainant's legal notice dated 25.06.2014 was not in conformity with the statutory provisions inasmuch as the notice was for Rs. 7,55,125/- (Rupees Seven Lacs Fifty Five Thousand One Hundred Twenty-Five), which was different from the sum expressed in words on the cheque in question. According to him, because of such discrepancy, the statutory notice given under section 138(b) of the N.I. Act was not in accordance with law and hence, the consequential complaint is liable to be quashed.

11. Elaborating his argument, learned counsel invited Court's attention towards section 138 of the N.I. Act and submitted that the notice of demand must be "for the payment of said amount of money", and in case the amount is expressed differently in words and figures, per force of section 18, the amount stated in the words is to be taken into consideration as the cheque amount. He argued that in the instant case, not only the notice even complaint ought to have been institut