The court clarified the procedural requirements for summoning orders and the maintainability of a single complaint for multiple cheques under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. MUNIR, J.

1. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 967/2004 'Smt. P.K. Bhatti vs. Gulashan Seth' under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act pending in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut. A summoning order dated 21.06.2004, passed by the Magistrate in the case has also been sought to be set aside.

2. This is an old assigned matter, and despite best efforts made by this Court to secure the presence of the learned counsel for the applicant, he has not appeared on 17.01.2019. The matter was heard with the assistance of Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and Sri Vinod Kant, the learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned AGA, appearing on behalf of the State. Records of the case were perused and orders reserved.

3. A perusal of the complaint annexed as annexure no. 1 to the affidavit filed in support of the application, shows that the impugned proceedings have arisen in the background of facts that the applicant, who is hereinafter referred to as the 'accused', is a son-in-law to the complainant. The accused borrowed between the months of January, 2002 and December, 2002, on various dates, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-, which he did not return. It is alleged in the complaint that the accused in order to liquidate his debt, issued four cheques, three of these being drawn on the State Bank of India, Cantt. Branch, Meerut, bearing cheque no. 750238 dated 30.12.2003 for a sum of Rs. 38,000/-, cheque no. 750233 dated 09.12.2003 for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-and cheque bearing no. 75237 dated 03.01.2004 for a sum of Rs. 40,000/; whereas a fourth cheque was issued by the complainant, drawn on the Bank of Baroda, Belly Bazar Branch, Meerut, bearing no. 183730 dated 16.01.2004 for a sum of Rs. 38,000/-. These cheques were handed over by the accused to the complainant, with an assurance that these would be encashed on presentation.

4. It is said in the complaint that the cheques were presented by the complainant to the Bank, but each of the instruments were returned dishonoured by the Bank through two memoranda of dishonour, dated 17.04.2004 and 29.04.2004. It is the complainant's further case that upon receipt of information about dishonour from the Bank, the complainant caused to be served a notice of demand through registered post dated 30.04.2004 upon the accused, which he received; but, despite receipt of a notice of demand, the accused did not make good his liability regarding proceeds due on the cheques. Accordingly, the present complaint was filed on 15.06.2004.

5. It is apparent that the complaint was filed after expiry of a period of fifteen days from service of the notice of demand, as required by Section 138 (c) of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Ex facie, the intimation of dishonour about the instruments was received on 17.04.2004 and 29.04.2004, whereas the notice of demand was issued on 30.04.2004, well within the period of 30 days, envisaged under Section 138(b) of the Act.

6. A perusal of the complaint shows that the grievance of the petitioner put forward in the form of a legal objection to the maintainability of the complaint, is two fold. One, that the impugned summoning order has been passed without recording the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Apparently, the applicant intends to say that the complainant's statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. has not been recorded, but the Magistrate has acted on an affidavit of the complainant alone, to take cognizance of the offence. In this connection, it may be mentioned that by virtue of amendment introduced by Act No. 55 of 2002, with effect from 06.02.2003, the provisions of Section 145 have been added to the Act, that read as under:

145. Evidence on affidavit.—

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of