A legal notice under Section 138 must clearly state the cheque amount due; a vague demand fails to meet legal requirements, rendering the complaint invalid.

JUDGMENT

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been preferred under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter ‘BNSS’) seeking quashing of complaint dated 03.08.2021 filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter ‘NI Act’) bearing COMA No.11698 of 2021 titled as ‘M/s Cotton and Blends Inc. vs. M/s A.H. Fashion Karma Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.’ (Annexure P-1), pending before learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Briefly, the facts, as alleged, are that respondent No.3 is in the business of manufacturing hosiery products. The petitioners approached respondent No.3 and requested it to supply t-shirts on credit basis of 45 days from the date of sale. The said material was supplied and six invoices were generated qua it, totaling to a sum of Rs.93,15,401/-. On 14.06.2021, the petitioners paid Rs.12,36,000/- and thus, Rs.80,79,286/- remained due. In order to discharge the said legal liability, the petitioners issued six cheques. The present complaint pertains to cheque bearing No.000476 dated 08.06.2021 of Rs.6,18,912/- drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, Jmd Regent Square, Mehrauli, Gurgaon, issued in favour of respondent No.3. However, on presentation for encashment, the said cheque was dishonoured with the remarks- ‘Funds Insufficient’ vide return memo dated 11.06.2021. Thereafter, a legal notice dated 02.07.2021 was served upon the petitioners. Since the petitioners failed to make the requisite payment within the stipulated time, complaint(supra) was filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that the legal notice dated 02.07.2021 does not mention the part payment of Rs.12,36,000/- made by the petitioners via RTGS on 14.06.2021, which is also reflected in the ledger account maintained by respondent No.3. He further contends that it is trite law that the legal notice must be specific and the demand made therein cannot be omnibus in nature. As such, since the legal notice does not adjust for the part payment already made, the same is rendered defective which further vitiates the filing of complaint (supra) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Furthermore, the said dispute led to filing of six separate criminal complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act. The petitioners have challenged three of these six complaints by means of petition bearing No.- CRM-M-36900- 2025 titled as ‘A.H. Fashion Karma Pvt. Ltd. And another vs. State of Punjab and others’ wherein, vide order dated 22.07.2025, a Co-ordinate bench of this Court stayed the proceedings before the learned trial Court. The said order is reproduced below:

“This petition has been filed for quashing of criminal complaint bearing No.COMA/11696/2021 titled as "M/s Cotton and Blends Inc. Vs.M/s A.H. Fashion Karma Pvt. Ltd. & another' as pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Ludhiana along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, whereby the petitioners had been ordered to be summoned as accused for commission of offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by learned trial Court.

It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned complaint and summoning orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law as there is fundamental flaw in the complaint itself. Respondent No.3 failed to disclose the factum of making part payment of Rs.17,16,346/- by the petitioners. There was no legally enforceable liability on the part of the petitioners to discharge at the time of lodging of the complaint. The amount in question is not legally recoverable. The mandatory requirement of proviso to Section 138(