SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(All) 1552

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Anish Kumar Gupta, J.
Dinesh Kumar – Applicant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and Another – Opposite Parties
Application U/S 482 No. - 20471 of 2024
Decided On : 28-08-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Applicant : Man Mohan Singh
For the Opposite Party : G.A.

IMPORTANT POINT
The cause of action for filing a complaint under Section 138 arises after 15 days from the service of the demand notice, not from the notice itself.

Headnote:

(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138 and 142(1)(b) - Quashing of criminal proceedings - The court clarified that the cause of action for filing a complaint arises only after the expiry of 15 days from the service of the demand notice, followed by a one-month period for filing the complaint. The previous ruling in Mamta Gautam was deemed per incuriam. (Paras 8 and 9)

(B) Legal Demand Notice - The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to the timelines established in the N.I. Act for filing complaints regarding dishonored cheques. (Paras 6 and 7)

JUDGMENT :

Anish Kumar Gupta, J.

1. Heard Sri Man Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1397 of 2021 (Rajveer Singh vs. Dinesh Kumar) under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Police Station-Jaithra, District-Etah as well as order dated 16.08.2022.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant relying upon the judgement of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mamta Gautam vs. State of Uttar Pradesh passed in Criminal Revision No. 530 of 1998 dated 2.5.2000 has vehemently submitted that the instant complaint case filed by the opposite party no. 2 is time barred as the legal demand notice was sent on 18.2.2021 which was served on 19.2.2021 on the applicant, therefore the complaint ought to have been filed within one month from the date of service of notice. However, in the instant case the complaint was filed on 2.4.2021 which is beyond the period of one month from the date of service of notice, therefore, learned counsel for the applicant seeks quashing of the entire proceedings of the instant case.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that in terms of Section 142 (1)(b) of N.I. Act, the complainant has one month's time to file the complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act from the date when the cause of action arises for filing such complaint and the cause of action for filing the complaint would arise only after the expiry of 15 days period from the date of service of demand notice on the drawer of the cheque. In the instant case, demand notice was served on 19.02.2021, therefore, the cause of action for filing the complaint would arise after the expiry of 15 days period from 19.02.2021 i.e. 7.03.2021 and from 07.03.2021 the complainant had the time of one month to file the complaint and in the instant case the complaint has already been filed within the period of limitation i.e. on 02.04.2021. In view thereof, learned A.G.A. submits that no interference is called for in the instant matter.

5. Having heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the record of the case.

6. From the record of the case, it is apparent that the cheque was allegedly issued by the applicant herein on 18.10.2020 and 20.10.2020. The aforesaid cheques were presented for encashment on 21.01.2021 which were dishonored on 22.01.2021 with the remark 'payment stopped by the drawer'. Thereafter, on 18.2.2021 legal demand notice was issued by the opposite party no.2 which was served on 19.2.2021 upon the applicant herein, thereupon the complaint was filed on 02.04.2021. To appreciate the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, it is relevant to take note of the provisions of Section 138 and 142(1)(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Ac, 1881, which are reproduced herein as under:-

    "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 provision 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 draw

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top