The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the jurisdictional provisions under Section 138 and Section 142A(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the determination of the validity of the complaint based on the timeliness and proper service of notice.

JUDGMENT

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. - The present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been maintained by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside the proceedings pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kinnaur Camp at Rampur, District Shimla, in Case No.158 of 2015, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, titled Ravinder Singh Thakur vs. Ranjeet Chauhan.

2. The key facts, giving rise to the present petition are that the complainant-respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'complainant') is an agriculturist and having his own orchard and the respondent-petitioner (hereinafter referred as 'respondent') is running a business of sale and purchase of fruit and vegetables. The respondent had time and again called the complainant in the year 2013-14, to send apple boxes in the market for sale. The complainant has exceeded the request and sent 400 apple boxes to the respondent in Narkanda, in the month of September, 2014 after assurance given by the respondent that the same may be sold out in a higher price and payment will be made promptly. The respondent has sold out the same, in a total amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, after deducting all the expenses and issued sale receipt to this effect. The complainant time and again requested the respondent that the amount lying with him may be given. In order to pay the legal liability, the respondent has issued cheque of Rs.5,00,000/- bearing No.146595, dated 22.9.2014, in favour of the complainant. The respondent at the time of issuance of aforesaid cheque assured the complainant that the same would be honored by his banker as and when presented by the complainant. The complainant presented the said cheque through his bank State Bank of India Branch at Rohru, within its validity in his own account and the same was returned with an endorsement "Insufficient fund" vide memo, dated 22.12.2014, issued by the Bank, which was received by the complainant later on. Thereafter, the complainant has issued a legal notice dated 24.12.2014 to the respondent through his counsel, which was sent by registered post with acknowledgment on the address of the respondent dated 24.12.2014. The notice was sent on correct address of the respondent through registered post on 24.12.2014. The registered letter and acknowledgment was issued on the address of the respondent, the same was returned unclaimed with the note "Not met left no address and returned to sender" on 30.12.2014. The respondent has failed to pay the aforesaid amount of cheque after receiving the notice as well as oral information given through mobile by the complainant after the cheque was dishonoured within a statutory period and thus, committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Hence, the present petition.

3. By way of the present petition, petitioner has come before this Court for quashing the complaint on the ground that the complaint was time barred, no notice was duly served upon the respondent and the complaint is premature and the learned Court at Rampur Bushehar, has no jurisdiction to try the case.

4. In support of his arguments, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by this Court rendered in Criminal Appeal No.168 of 2008, titled Bimla Devi and others vs. Harish Rana, , decided on 20.6.2017. He has also relied upon the judgment in Bridgestone India Private Limited vs. Inderpal Singh, (2016) 2 SCC 75 , on his aspect and submitted that only the Learned Court at Rohru, District Shimla, has got jurisdiction.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has vehemently argued that address of the respondent has given in the present petition is the same, to which, notice was issued. He has further argued that as the presumption is taken with respect to the delivery of registered notice, the complaint is much prior to the expiry of time i.e. time was to expire on 8th