The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the time limits for filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, emphasizing the significance of the date of cause of action and the allowance for filing a complaint after the prescribed period with sufficient cause.

JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.

Heard Sri Salman Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Diwakar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri A.D. Mishra, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved with a prayer to quash the impugned summoning order dated 04.02.2012 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai in Complaint Case No.2646 of 2013 (Anil Babu Niranjan vs. Mohammad Yaquoob Mansoori) under section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, P.S. Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun at Orai and the entire proceedings of complaint case and also a prayer is made to stay the proceedings in this case till the disposal of this application.

3. In the affidavit filed in support of the stay application it is stated that as per the version contained in the complaint, the opposite party no. 2 runs an Electronic shop in Gandhi Market, Orai and the applicant is a proprietor of M/s. N.I. Purse Belt Store on main road, Orai. He does business by the said name. As per prosecution case, both the businessmen i.e. the applicant as well as the opposite party no. 2 were having good relation and since the applicant needed money for enhancement of his business, the applicant borrowed Rs.3.00 lacs from opposite party no. 2. On 7.10.2013 a cheque bearing no.038386 of Union Bank Branch, Orai was issued by the applicant for returning the said amount, which was presented by opposite party no. 2 before the Bank on 9.10.2013 but the same was returned with an endorsement that there was no sufficient balance in the account. As per allegation in the complaint, the said information of dishonouring of cheque was given to the applicant and the said amount of Rs.3.00 lacs was asked to be paid but the same was refused by the applicant where-after on 21.10.2013 the opposite party no. 2 issued notice under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act through his counsel but after passing of 15 days time when the money was not paid back, on 26.11.2013 opposite party no. 2 again sent a notice through his counsel to the applicant which did not return and thereafter on 18.12.2013 opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The complainant/opposite party no. 2 had given statement under section 200 Cr.P.C. repeating the same version as were mentioned in the complaint, copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure-2.

4. The Magistrate without taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, illegally passed the impugned order dated 4.2.2014, which is annexed as Annexure-3. In fact the applicant had not given any cheque to the opposite party no. 2 rather opposite party no. 2 fraudulently obtained the cheque regarding which the applicant could not know and when opposite party no. 2 issued notice on 21.10.2013 which was received by him, he came to know about the fraud and cheating committed by opposite party no. 2. It is further mentioned that no witness has been examined in respect of amount of Rs.3.00 lacs having been paid by the opposite party no. 2 to the applicant nor any date or time or place has been disclosed when the said amount was lent. The complaint was barred under section 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act which provides that it should be moved within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises while in the present case notice was sent on 21.10.2013 and the complaint has been filed on 18.12.2013 i.e. after 58 days. It is further mentioned that it is settled law that where two demand notices were served on the accused, the cause of action would arise only on expiry of 15 days time from the date of first notice. The subsequent notice would not give rise to any fresh cause of action. It is beyond imagination that the opposite party no. 2 would lend amount of Rs.3.00 lacs to the applicant without there being relationship between them. In fact, no such incident has happened as suggested by the opposite party no.