The correct address for the service of notice of demand and the necessity of due diligence and full sense of responsibility in passing orders of issuance of process against an accused.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner has challenged the complaint filed by the respondent against her for offences under Section 138,read with Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter, for short 'the NI Act'), which is stated to be pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class (Judge Small Causes), Srinagar (hereinafter referred to as the trial Magistrate).

2. It appears that the respondent has filed a complaint against the petitioner before the trial Magistrate alleging therein that the petitioner and her husband had approached her for a loan, for the purpose of setting up her business, as she was facing financial hardships. It is alleged in the impugned complaint that a total amount of Rs.62.00 lacs was advanced by the respondent/complainant to the petitioner and for repayment of the said amount, the petitioner issued seven cheques in favour of the respondent/complainant. The details of these cheques, as given in the complaint, are as under:

 3. It is further alleged in the complaint that the petitioner/accused filed a suit against the respondent/complainant, seeking an injunction that the respondent should not make any demand of money from her. According to the complainant, this was done by the accused in order to avoid the payment. The complainant, thereafter, presented the aforesaid seven cheques for payment before the J&K Bank Branch Mehjoor Nagar on 16.02.2021, but all the seven cheques were returned unpaid for 'insufficiency of funds' vide seven separate memos. The respondent/complainant is stated to have issued a notice of demand, which was sent to the petitioner/accused through registered post on 26.02.2021, but despite receipt of the said notice, the petitioner/accused did not pay the cheque amount within the statutory period, which compelled the respondent/accused to file the impugned complaint.

4. The petitioner/accused has challenged the impugned complaint as also order dated 26.03.2021 passed by the learned trial Magistrate, whereby cognizance of the offences was taken and process was issued against the petitioner. Challenge has also been thrown to order dated 21.04.2022 passed by learned trial Magistrate whereby, in an application filed by the respondent/complainant, the petitioner/accused has been directed to pay interim compensation to the tune of 20% of the cheque amount, which comes to Rs.12.40 lacs, to the respondent/complainant.

5. The grounds urged by the petitioner are that the statutory notice of demand was never served by the respondent/complainant upon her and the address of the petitioner/accused as mentioned in the postal receipt is incorrect, as such, it cannot be presumed that she has received the statutory notice of demand. It has also been contended that while taking cognizance of the offences and issuing process against the petitioner, the learned trial Magistrate has acted mechanically, inasmuch as description of 11 cheques instead of 07 cheques has been mentioned in the impugned order and it has been recorded in the order that the cheques were dishonoured through a single memo of dishonour which is against the records. It has also been contended that the order whereby interim compensation has been awarded in favour of the respondent/complainant is devoid of any reasons and, as such, the same is liable to be set aside.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case, including the trial court record.

7. The first ground that has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the address of the petitioner/accused mentioned in the pos