1. Petitioner, by means of this petition, are seeking the quashing of complaint proceedings initiated by the Magistrate after taking congnizance of the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and issued process against them in exercise of the powers of the court under Section 561-A Cr. P.C.

2. The main plank of the petitioners contention is that, the complainant did not get the cheques cleared given in advance by the petitioners towards the repayment of the loan advances for purchases of a car on the due date. The complainant deposited all the three cheques dated 1-10-1999 No PRQ-637016 amounting to Rs. 4.200/-. cheque dated 1-11-1999 No. PRQ-637017 amount to Rs. 4.200/- and cheque dated 1-12-1999 No. PQR-637018 amounting to Rs. 4,200/- on one date, i.e 25-3-2000 for collection and realisation together contrary to the agreement between the petitioners and respondent at the time of issuance of 20 cheques. Each cheque was for an amount of Rs. 4.200/- (Rupees four thousand and two hundred only) payable to the respondent by first of every month from the account of the petitioners towards the adjustment of the loan, but the complainant instead deposited all the three cheques together on 25-3-2000 without informing the petitioners, which stood dishonoured, resulting into the filing of the complaint under Section 420 RPC and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. The sole grievance of the petitioners raised in this petition is that, no notices, as required under law, were served upon the petitioners, demanding the amount of cheques so dishonoured. That the courier service is no service in the eyes of law that too through agent or servant, who is not authorised to receive any post on behalf of the petitioners. It was further pleaded that the notices sent through registered post were returned with the endorsement that the addressee left for Delhi and, in such an event, it could not be said that notice of demand has been served upon the petitioners, that the notice attached with the complaint is not a legal notice and does not conform to the requirement of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, because the amount demanded is from the date of notice instead of from the date of receipt of notice by the respondent, and, thus, the compliant was not entertainable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments. Act.

4. Mr. Ravinder Sharma, learned advocate appearing for the respondent, however, submitted that on the basis of the statement made in the complaint, prima facie, there is sufficient material for the court to take cognizance and issue process against the petitioners.

5. Having considered the rival submissions and after examining the assertions made in the complaint, I have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that even if there is no expression or explicit averments in the complaint, court would be justified in taking cognizance of the offence if the ingredients or inferences from the complaint. In the matter of taking cognizance on receiving a complaint, under Section 190)1) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure enjoins that Magistrate empowered under Sub-Section (2) of Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can take cognizance upon the receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence. Section 142 of the Act enjoins the conditions for taking the cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. As regards the contention raised Mr. R.P. Sangra, petitioners advocate, that courier service is no service in the eyes of law, it is significant to point out that under Section 138 of the Act, no mode is prescribed for service of the notice. It is sufficient that the notice is served on the accused. In the instant case, complaint stating that notices were sent as registered post as well as through courier and the service is clearly evident from the POD received back by the complaint from the courier, whereas the notices sent through registered post received back by the c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document