JUDGMENT :

1. This petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No.1116 of 2013 including order taking cognizance dated 02.07.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ranchi whereby cognizance of offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has been taken and summons has been directed to be issued against the petitioner, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ranchi.

The prosecution story is based on the typed complaint petition for the complainant namely Dindayal Singh. It is alleged that the accused no.2 on behalf of the Care Vision Infrastructure and Agrotech Ltd. fraudulently convinced and motivated the complainant to invest money in the said company with an assurance that after 12 months the money will be returned to complainant with 12 % interest over the invested money. It has been further alleged that the complainant invested altogether Rs.3,00,000/- in the company. It is further alleged that on maturity the accused no.2 had issued cheque of Rs.3,36,000/- bearing cheque no.913947 of Bank of India Kantatoli Branch Ranchi having account no.459920110000074 dated 16.01.2013.

It is alleged that the said cheque was deposited by the complainant in his account in the said bank for encashment on 16.1.2013 however, the said cheque was returned unpaid on 16.1.2013 itself on account of insufficient fund. The accused apologized for dishonor of cheque and at the same time requested the complainant to redeposit the same in the bank on 25.1.2013 for fresh clearance. It is further alleged that the complainant on assurance by the accused again deposited the said cheque on 25.1.2013 which too dishonoured on account of insufficient of fund. The accused assured to the complainant to redeposit the cheque again on 07.3.2013 and the said cheque dishonoured again on 8.3.2013 on account of insufficient fund.

It is alleged that the complainant then sent a legal notice dated 22.3.2013 and request was made to the accused to make payment within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the said notice and the sane notice was duly served upon the accused on 23.3.2013. it is further alleged that the despite the service of the said notice the accused did not make the payment of dishonoured cheque to the complainant.”

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the cheque issued by the petitioner was dishonoured and returned back by the banker unpaid with return memo dated 16.1.2013 and further again dishonoured on 25.01.2013 and third time on 08.3.2013 it was dishonoured for the reason that ‘payment stopped by the drawer’ and the complainant thereafter sent a demand notice through his lawyer by registered post on 22.03.2013 under section 138 N.I.Act, however, when the cheque amount remained unpaid then this complaint was filed by the complainant on 03.05.2013.

3. She further submits that the cognizance is also not in accordance with law and the judicial mind has not been applied in taking cognizance. She further submits that the case has been filed prematurely as in the light of section 138(c) of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the N.I.Act) 15 days was required to be looked into by the complainant however without looking into the statutory provision the complaint has been filed which is premature. She relied by on the case of ‘Subodh S. Salaskar v. Jayprakash M. Shan and Another, (2008) 13 SCC 689. Paragraph no.20, 22, 23, 25 are quoted below :

“20. The legal notice admittedly was issued on 17-1-2001. It was sent by speed post. It was supposed to be served within a couple of days. A bare perusal of the statements made in Para 10 of the complaint petition, as quoted hereinbefore, clearly demonstrates that although the actual date of service of notice was allegedly not known, the complainant proceeded on the basis that the same was served within a reasonable period, otherwise in absence of service