The strict interpretation of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and the deemed service of demand notice through registered post were central to the court's decision.

JUDGMENT :

1. Inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. (now Section 482 Cr.P.C.) is being invoked by the petitioner seeking quashment of complaint File No. 04/C titled as "Farooq Ahmad Parray vs. Ghulam Ahmad Rather" as also order dated 31-03-2016 and all subsequent proceedings/orders.

2. The petition is filed on the premise by the petitioner that the complainant/respondent filed a false and baseless complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (for short the Act) in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ganderbal against the petitioner on 31-03-2016 having been assigned to the court of Additional Special Mobile Magistrate, Ganderbal (for short the trial court).

3. It is being stated that in the complaint the complainant/respondent alleged that he had business transactions with the petitioner herein and the petitioner owed a sum of Rs. 23,46,000/- to him and in this regard had issued to him two cheques bearing Nos. 356152 dated 04-03-2016 amounting to Rs. 13 lacs and cheque No. 356153 dated 04-03-2016 amounting to Rs. 10,46,000/- drawn at J&K Bank Branch Duderhama.

4. It is being stated that the complainant/respondent alleged to have presented the said cheques before the drawee Bank on 04-03-2016 which however, came to be returned back to him on 04-03-2016 itself for the reason "not sufficient funds".

5. It is being stated that the complainant/respondent alleged in the complaint that a demand notice for payment of the cheque amount was issued against the petitioner herein for making payment within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice which notice is stated to have been sent through registered post on 16- 03-2016 and that the petitioner herein failed to make payments even after receiving said notice.

6. It is being stated that the complainant/respondent herein filed the aforesaid complaint before the trial court on 31-03-2016 through his counsel and on the said date the statement of the complainant/respondent and his witness was recorded by the trial court and that the trial court issued notice to the complainant vide order dated 31-03-2016.

7. It is being stated that the trial court while issuing notice on 16-03-2016 had to frame an opinion for taking cognizance under Section 204 Cr.P.C. that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding in the case. The satisfaction recorded by the trial court and cognizance taken thereof is stated to be patently farce and without application of mind and perusal of the record.

8. It is being stated that the complainant/respondent in the complaint did not mention as to when the demand notice issued against the petitioner was served upon him. The complaint is stated to have been filed before the court below before expiry of 15 days from the date of dispatch of notice as the offence under Section 138 of the Act is made out only if the accused fails to make the payment within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the demand notice.

9. It is being stated that there has been no material on record to show that the demand notice was served upon the petitioner and that the complainant/respondent without waiting for expiry of 15 days stipulated in the demand notice filed the complaint and thus, there was no commission of offence committed by the petitioner and consequently the trial court ought not to have entertained the complaint, taken cognizance or issue notice to the petitioner. The presentation of complaint, the order of cognizance and issuance of notice to the petitioner vide order dated 31-03-2016 is contended to be illegal and in violation of the provisions of the Act.

10. It is being further stated that the complaint case was listed before the court below on 10-08-2017 and was adjourned on the ground that the parties want to have private settlement whereafter it had been fixed for 19-08-2017 on which date the parties sought extention of time for compromise and that the case was fixed for 09- 09-2019 on which date the petitioner could not attend the co