Back
SURINDER SINGH
Pardeep Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Prithvi Raj – Respondent
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The case involves a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act due to alleged issues with notice service and limitation (!) (!) .
The core issue pertains to whether the dishonor of the cheque and subsequent notices, specifically when the first notice was returned unclaimed, constitute a fresh cause of action and whether the complaint is within the prescribed limitation period (!) .
It is recognized that the deemed service of notice, especially when the first notice is returned unclaimed, can still be valid under certain circumstances, but this depends on the facts of each case. The court emphasizes that the presumption of service in such cases is not automatic and must be established (!) .
The proviso to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is intended to protect honest drawers who genuinely intend to fulfill their obligations but may have failed due to inadvertence or negligence. It is not meant to shield dishonest drawers who habitually cheat by issuing dishonored cheques (!) .
In the specific case, the first notice was returned marked "unclaimed," and the subsequent notice was sent to the same address. The complainant alleged that the notice was served but was returned undelivered. The accused can contest this by providing evidence that the notice was deliberately avoided or that the endorsement was correct (!) (!) .
The court held that whether the notice was properly served or not is a matter of evidence, and thus, the proceedings could not be quashed solely on this ground. The case was remanded for trial, and the parties were directed to appear before the trial court (!) .
Overall, the decision underscores the importance of proper service of notice and clarifies that the question of service, especially when notices are returned unclaimed, is a factual matter that cannot be decided at the quashing stage without evidence (!) .
Let me know if you need further analysis or assistance.
SURINDER SINGH, J.
The petitioner through this petition is seeking quashing of the proceedings initiated on the complaint filed by the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act by invoking the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, precisely on the ground that when the first notice of demand was sent by the respondent and was returned by the postal authorities as “unclaimed” whether the subsequent dishonour of cheque and sending of the second notice of demand accrued a fresh cause of action and the complaint would be within limitation.
2. As a matter of fact the cause of action may still arise for prosecution of the drawer of the cheque on the basis of deemed service of notice under clause (c) to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. This question has to be answered by reference to the facts of each case. In D. Vinod Shivappa v. Nanda Belliappa, AIR 2006 SC 2179, the Apex Court observed that no rule of universal application can be laid down that in all cases where notice is not served on account of non-availability of the addressee, the Court must presume service of notice.
3. It is well settled that in interpreting a statut
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
