Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Rounak Shukla @ Raunak Shukla – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. invalid notice service due to wrong address dismisses s.138 complaint. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. accused appearance and relation imply valid notice service. (Para 5) |
| 3. delivery to unrelated smita fails s.138 notice requirement. (Para 6) |
| 4. unrelated recipient invalidates demand notice under s.138 ni act. (Para 7 , 8) |
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash order dated 23.05.2023 passed in Criminal Revision No. 315 of 2022 whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur dismissed the revision application and affirmed the order dated 14.12.2022 passed in C/1 Case No. 7617 of 2022 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur whereby and whereunder the learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner as not maintainable.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner being the complainant filed C/1 Case No. 7617 of 2022 alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act by the Opposite Party Nos. 2 & 3 of this Cr.M.
Valid service of demand notice under Section 138 NI Act requires delivery to drawer; receipt by unrelated person does not fulfill precondition, rendering complaint not maintainable without cause of a....
The presumption of service of notice under Section 138 N.I. Act is valid when proper postal methods are followed, even if returned for non-delivery.
Service of notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is presumed when sent to the correct address, placing the burden on the accused to prove non-receipt.
The requirement of legal notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is crucial, and failure to challenge its service undermines the defense.
Proper service of notice under Section 138 is crucial, but if sent to the last known address, it is deemed sufficient, maintaining the presumption in favor of the complainant.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of valid service of notice and the burden of proof regarding the financial capacity of the complainant.
Dishonour of cheque – Complainant is not required to prove service of notice on accused before institution of case—Requirement of giving notice is a clear departure from rule of criminal law, where t....
Sending replacement cheque in closed cover refused by payee does not amount to payment under Section 138 NI Act Proviso (c) as payee must possess money; compounding requires complainant's consent.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
