The main legal point established in the judgment is that successive presentation of a cheque within its validity period is permissible, and dishonour for reasons such as 'account closed' constitutes an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

1. By way of present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., prayer has been made for quashing of complaint No.NACT/1291/2017 dated 07.12.2017, titled as "Arun Kumar vs. Madan Singla" as well as order of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula, passed on even date, whereby the petitioner has been summoned under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, "1881 Act").

2. Very briefly facts of the case are that on account of dishonour of cheque bearing No.419539 dated 18.07.2017 amounting to Rs.2 lakhs, for the reason “other reason- bank is merged”, which was drawn on Bank of Punjab, Chandigarh, a complaint came to be filed against the petitioner at the instance of respondent, invoking Section 138 of the 1881 Act, wherein, the petitioner was summoned vide order dated 07.12.2017.

3. By way of present petition, the aforesaid complaint as well as summoning order has been impugned on the ground that from the perusal of cheque in question and contents of complaint, no offence under Section 138 of 1881 Act has been made out against the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cheque in question is dated 18.07.2017, which was presented for the first time on 11.09.2017 and dishonoured on the same date for the reason "other reason-Bank is merged". The same was again presented on 18.10.2017, but was again returned with remarks "other reason-bank is merged". Thereafter, a demand notice dated 26.10.2017 was issued under registered A.D. post on 30.10.2017 by the respondent, followed by filing of complaint and the summoning order dated 07.12.2017.

5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the cheque in question was dishonoured at the first instance on 11.09.2017 for the reason "other reason-bank is merged", there was no occasion for the respondent-complainant to have presented the same again as there was no probability of its encashment on account of bank having merged wayback in the year 2005. He further submits that though successive presentation of the cheque during its validity period was permissible in law, however, in the wake of the reason mentioned for its dishonor, its successive presentation was not going to fetch its encashment, as such the same was not permissible in law. He further points out that in the present facts, demand notice served post second dishonor though within 15 days thereafter was wholly barred in law being in violation of the mandatory provision of Section 138 of the 1881 Act.

6. On the other hand, no one has chosen to appear on behalf of the respondent despite service as duly noticed in the previous orders dated 14.01.2019 and 05.02.2021. Nonetheless, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the complainant has been duly represented by his counsel before the trial Court and the factum of pendency of the present petition has been duly recorded in those proceedings.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the paper book, I am unable to find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.

8. As per settled law and proviso (a) of Section 138 of the 1881 Act, successive presentation of cheque is permissible within the period of its validity. The issue whether the prosecution based upon second or successive dishonour of the cheque is permissible or not, is no longer res integra and a three-Judges Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in "MSR Leathers vs. S. Palaniappan and Another" reported as 2013 (1) SCC 177, held that there is nothing in the provisions of Section 138 of the Act that forbids the holder of the cheque to make successive presentation of the cheque and institute the criminal complaint based on the second or successive dishonour of the cheque on its presentation. While holding so, Hon'ble Apex Court relied upon one of the salutary principles of interpretation of statutes that an interpretation which promotes and advances the obj