Advocates Appeared:
A.K.Mishra, A.R.MOHANTY, G.S.PANDA, L.MISHRA, N.MOHANTY, R.PATIL, S.Patnaik

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

• The case involves an appeal against the order of cognizance in a criminal complaint related to a cheque bounce case under the Negotiable Instruments Act (!) (!) .
• The court found that the complaint was filed prematurely, which violated procedural requirements, leading to the quashing of the cognizance order (!) (!) .
• Non-service of statutory notice to the accused was established, as the notices were sent to incorrect addresses and returned undelivered (!) (!) .
• The complaint was lodged within a period that did not account for the proper waiting time after the statutory notice was returned undelivered, further invalidating the process (!) (!) .
• The accused argued that the notice was sent in the wrong address and that the complaint was filed before the expiry of the statutory period, thus violating procedural provisions (!) (!) .
• The court observed that the complaint was filed in haste and prematurely, and that remanding the case would not address the procedural irregularities (!) (!) .
• The court emphasized the importance of proper service of statutory notices and adherence to statutory timelines before initiating criminal proceedings under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
• Consequently, the court quashed the order of cognizance and allowed the application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, effectively dismissing the case at this stage (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need a detailed analysis or assistance with any specific aspect of this case.