The explanation given in the complaint itself constituted sufficient cause for condoning the delay in instituting the complaint, and the complaint was not barred by time.

JUDGMENT

Pankaj Jain, J. (Oral) - The complainant has preferred the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the Order dated 1st of August, 2012 (Annexure P-2) passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurgaon, whereby complaint filed at his behest under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the Act') stands dismissed and the order dated 28th of September, 2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Gurgaon whereby aforesaid order Annexure P-2 stands affirmed in revision.

2. This is a bunch of nine petitions. All these petitions are being disposed off by a common order as they involve same questions of law in the backdrop of similar facts and are directed against the same set of respondents. So much so the orders impugned in the petitions read the same. Facts are being culled out from CRM-M-14055- 2013.

3. In these matters notice of motion was issued on 9th of July, 2013. After service of notice on the respondents following order was passed on 4th of November, 2014 :-

'It is reported by the office that notice issued to the respondents have been received back with the report of refusal.

Post for hearing on 22.01.2015.

Photo copy of this order be placed on the files of each connected cases."

4. As per the complainant it is a proprietorship concern dealing with fiber rolls/raisin sheets etc. Respondent used to purchase material from the petitioner on credit basis. In order to discharge liability respondent issued cheque No.304763 dated 29th of February, 2012 for an amount of Rs.1,56,634/- drawn on Bank of India. When presented, the said cheque was returned vide memo dated 26th of March, 2012 with the remarks, 'exceeds arrangements'. Petitioner claims that on instruction of the respondent the cheque was again presented by him. However, the same was again dishonoured vide memo dated 18th of April, 2012 with the remarks, 'payment stopped by the drawer'. Complainant further claims that demand notice as contemplated under the statute was sent by registered post to the respondent on 15th of May, 2012. The same was returned unclaimed with the remarks, 'the recipient is out of station for indefinite period'. Another notice was sent through e-mail on 2nd of June, 2012. After the respondent failed to respond to the demand raised by the complainant, present complaint Annexure P-1 was filed against the respondents for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, on 16th of July, 2012. At the stage of summoning, Ld. Trial Court dismissed the complaint vide following order dated 1st of August, 2012 :-

'Today the case was fixed for consideration on the summoning point of accused. Argument heard. Ld. Counsel for the applicant argued that accused issued a cheque in discharge of his liability against the purchase item. Cheque got dishonored on 16.4.2012 with the remarks 'Exceeds Arrangement' Thereafter a legal notice dated 15.5.2012 was sent to the accused which was returned unclaimed. Thereafter another legal notice dated 2 June 2012 was sent to the accused through E-mail and hence this complaint was filed on 16.7.2012.

In the present case the first legal notice was sent on 15.5.2012. So if limitation starts from this date complaint should have been filed on or before 30.6.2012. But in between complainant again sent another legal notice dated 2.6.2012 on the ground that earlier notice dated 15.5.2012 was returned unclaimed. But no document to prove this fact is placed on file. Complainant placed reliance on the following authorities :-

10 Vishwanath Ghosh Vs. Ramesh Chandra Sindhi 2011 (2) RCR (Civil) 418.

In case titled Haryana State Small Industries Vs Laxmi Agro Industries 2006(4) RCR (Criminal) 999 the court has held that if after sending of legal notice the accused assures the payment and on that assurance complainant present the cheque again, cheque got dishonored again notice sent after this dishono