JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Anwari Hussain, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State-opposite party no.1, Sri Pawan Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Manish Trivedi, learned counsel for the ICICI-Bank.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 36644 of 2022 (Anuj Kumar Gupta vs. Mohd. Yunus Malik) under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1881) as well as summoning order dated 20.6.2022.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that complaint case was filed by the opposite party no.2 under Section 142 of Act, 1881 on the ground of bouncing of cheque. He next submitted that alongwith complaint, letter of Bank dated 20.4.2022 has also been annexed having no seal or signature. He firmly submitted that in absence of seal or signature, letter cannot be treated as valid document. He further submitted that relying upon such letter, cognizance order has been passed, which is bad and liable to quashed.

4. Per contra, Sri Pawan Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has opposed and submitted that he has received the very same letter from the bank and on that basis and he has filed complaint alongwith said letter, therefore, he is not at fault in all eventuality. He further submitted that if the cheque and letter are not bearing any official stamp of the bank, it does not render the said letter as invalid or illegal. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Delhi Court in the case of Guneet Bhasin vs. State of NCT of Delhi and others reported in (2023) 296 DLT 401.

5. Earlier this Court vide order dated 4.7.2023 impleaded the ICICI Bank and directed the bank to file counter affidavit.

6. In compliance of that, Sri Manish Trivedi, learned counsel for the ICICI-Bank has filed counter affidavit and clearly stated that this letter was issued by the Bank, but inadvertently, same could not be signed. Further, bank has tendered unconditional apology with the undertaking that bank would be more conscious in future and such mistakes shall not be repeated again.

7. Sri Anwar Hussain, learned counsel for the applicant in his rejoinder argument submitted that Section 146 of Act, 1881 clearly provides that notice of information of dishonored cheque must have official mark and in light of that no proceeding can be initiated against the applicant.

8. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the letter issued by the Bank.

9. The issue is before this Court about the interpretation of Section 146 of Act, 1881, which is being quoted hereinbelow:-

"Section 146 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

The Court shall, in respect of every proceeding under this Chapter, on production of bank's slip or memo having thereon the official mark denoting that the cheque has been dishonoured, presume the fact of dishonour of such cheque, unless and until such fact is disproved."

10. From perusal of the aforesaid provision, the intention of legislation is very much clear i.e. to verify the fact as to whether the cheque was produced before the Bank and dishonoured for some reasons or not. So far as present case is concerned, bank has informed that cheque was dishonored due to 'Insufficient Funds', but there is no official mark, signature and seal of the Bank in the said letter dated 20.4.2022. Bank has filed counter affidavit and clearly approved the letter and submitted that inadvertently signed was left out. Relevant paragraph of the counter affidavit is quoted hereinbelow:-

"3. That the deponent very fairly submits that the cheque presented by the complainant Anuj Kumar Gupta was presented for clearing in the ICICI Bank which was sent to the clearing Bank and it bounced on account of "Insufficient Funds" and the bouncing memo dated 20.4.2022 was issued by the ICICI Bank and was sent to the account hold