Point of Law: Since in interpretation of statutes Court always presumes that legislature inserted every part thereof for a purpose and legislative intention is that very part should have effect above conclusion cannot be drawn for, that will make provision for limiting the period of making complaint nugatory.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Dr. S.B. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party no.1. No one appears on behalf of opposite party no.2, even in the revise call.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicant for quashing the summoning order dated 20.06.2006, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as well as proceeding in Case No.1567 of 2006 (Firm Khalique and Brothers Vs. Firm Aqsa Testiles), pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau, District Mau.

3. The opposite party no.2 has made averment that the applicant issued four cheques in his favour (Cheque No.16049 dated 10.06.2005 for Rs.30,000/-, Cheque No.16050 dated 20.06.2005 for Rs.30,000/-, Cheque No.16051 dated 25.08.2005 for Rs.30,000/- and Cheque No.16052 dated 01.07.2005 for Rs.25,000/-). All the cheques were submitted in I.D.B.I. Bank at Varanasi and the all the cheques were dishonoured due to the fact that the account of payee was closed. The legal notice was sent by opposite party no.2 to the applicant on 13.12.2005 requiring the opposite party no.2 to make payment of Rs.1,15,000/-, failing which the case will be executed. The opposite party no.2 filed the complaint before the court below on 21.03.2006 which is annexed as Annexure No.3 to the application.

4. The statement under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded by the court below and thereafter, summons were issued on 20.06.2006 for appearing before the Court. The applicant has challenged summoning order as well as entire case instituted against him.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that opposite party no.2 has mentioned in the complainant itself that cause of action arose on 28.11.2005 and thereafter opposite party no.2 had given legal notice on 13.12.2005. After giving one month’s notice and thereafter 15 days’ period as mentioned in Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (here-in-after referred to as “the N. I. Act”), the cause of action arose on 26.01.2006. The complaint case was filed on 21.03.2006.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has advanced argument that opposite party no.2 filed the case beyond reasonable limitation. The opposite party no.2 has not given any plausible reason for delay in the entire complaint; thus, the case under N.I. Act is liable to be quashed.

7. Sections 138 and 142 of the N.I. Act are relevant for disposal of the present case. Sections 138 and 142 of the N.I. Act is reproduced as below:

“Section 138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.—Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for [a term which may be extended to two years], or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:

Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless —

(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;

(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, [within thirty days] of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and

(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee o