The complaint must be filed within the specified time limit as per the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and issues regarding the nature of debt are addressed during trial.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Choubey, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Shabad Eqbal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2 and Mr. Ashok Kumar and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State in respective cases.

2. In these two petitions, question of facts and law are involved and that is why both the petitions have been heard together with the consent of the parties. Since two cheques were issued by the O.P.No.2, that is why two complaint cases have been filed which is the subject matter in these petitions.

3. These petitions have been filed for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 03.11.2017 in connection with Complaint Case No.3389/2017 in Cr.M.P.No.4227/2018 and Complaint Case No.3390/2017 in Cr.M.P. No.4257 of 2018 whereby cognizance under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act has been taken against the petitioner in both the cases. The cognizance order in both the cases is same.

4. The complaint case was filed by the O.P.No.2 stating therein that, the accused in order to discharge his liability had issued an account payee cheque to the complainant being cheque no.006048 dated 27.07.2017 of Rs.1,80,000/- drawn on Bank of India Arsandey Branch, Ranchi. The complainant deposited the said cheque in his account maintained with AXIS Bank, Kanke Raod Branch Ranchi but the cheque was returned by the accused Banker due to the reason ”Fund insufficient” and the complainant came to know about the said fact when his Banker namely AXIS Bank handed over the return cheque alongwith cheque return memo on 29.07.2017 with an information the accused did not have any sufficient fund in his account no.589510110001421. Thereafter the complainant given a demand notice sent through his Advocate to the accused on 09.08.2017 through speed post of India Post. The notice has been served upon the accused on 12.08.2017 but the accused did not pay the cheque amount to the complainant even till filing of the present complaint. As the accused did not pay the cheque amount till date, the complainant is left with no option but to file the present complaint. The accused has knowingly and intentionally issued the cheque to the complainant for the said amount although the accused has fully aware that no sufficient amount in his Bank Account no.589510110001421, thereafter the aid cheque issued by the accused, the accused has committed an offence punishable u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The intention of the accused since beginning to cheat the complainant and thereby the accused issued the said cheque which has been bounced due to insufficient fund in the Bank Account of the accused.

5. Mr. Choubey, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the cases submits that there was delay of 8 days in filing the complaint case and inspite of that, in absence of any condonation petition in view of the amended provision of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the cognizance has been taken. According to him, in view of transmission of legal notice, cheque return and statutory provision under section 138(c) and 142(b) of Negotiable Instruments Act which was required to be filed on 11.09.2017. He further submits that in the complaint, there is no disclosure what was the nature of debt which is one of the condition precedent for filing complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

6. Per contra, Mr. Shadab Eqbal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2 in both the cases, submits that there is no delay and the case has been filed well within the time.

7. Both the counsels, the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the O.P.No.2 have relied in the case of “K.S.Joseph v. Philips Carbon Black Ltd. & Anr.”, 2016 11 SCC 105. Mr. Choubey, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners relied on paragraph nos. 5 and 6 of the said judgment and Mr. Shadab Eqbal, the learned counsel appearing on