By way of this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the petitioner, who is facing trial in criminal case no. 1860 of 2001, M/s Rajeev Agencies vs. K.J. Cosmetics for the offences under Section 138 of negotiable Instruments Act, pending in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate-I, Haridwar, has prayed for quashing the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no. 3 filed a complaint before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar alleging therein that an amount of Rs. 6,000/- belonging to complainant/respondent no. 3 was due towards the petitioner and in order to repay that amount the petitioner issued cheque on 20.2.1998. The cheque was presented before the Bank and the Bank, on 18.3.1998, informed that it had to be returned unpaid. Again, the complainant presented the cheque on 2.4.1998, but it was bounced on 28.4.1998. The complainant thereafter sent the notice to the petitioner on 29.4.1998 which was not received by the petitioner. However, the complainant again sent a notice on 5.6.1998 and the same was received by the petitioner. Further, on the request made by the petitioner, the cheque was again presented in the Bank on 13.7.1998, but again on 29.7.1998 the cheque was bounced and again a notice was sent by the complainant to the petitioner on 3.8.1998. Thereafter the complaint was filed by respondent no. 3 against the petitioner on 9.9.1998. The statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter the complainant produced the witnesses and their statements were also recorded under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate after having perused the material available on record took the cognizance in the matter and issued summons to the petitioner for facing the trial. The petitioner against the order passed by the Magistrate issuing summons against it preferred revision but the revisional court also dismissed the revision.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the orders passed by the courts below, the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner before this Court.

4. Heard Sri Lalit Miglani, holding brief of Sri Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for respondent no. 1, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 and perused the record.

5. The short controversy raised in this case is whether the cause of action to file complaint for non-payment of money despite issue of the notice would arise only once or it would arise even after issuance of the notice on subsequent date after the first notice has already been issued.

6. The complaint filed by respondent no. 3 is contained in Annexure-1 to the petition, which shows that the cheque was issued to the complainant by the petitioner on 19.2.1998 and it was dishonoured by the Bank on 18.3.1998. The complainant further presented the cheque with the Bank on 2.4.1998, but it was again bounced on 28.4.1998. Thereafter, the complainant issued the notice to the petitioner on 29.4.1998, but that notice was not received by the petitioner. However, the notice was issued by the complainant, as per the allegation mentioned in the complaint, on 5.6.1998 which was received by the petitioner and on the request made by the petitioner, the complainant further presented the cheque with the Bank on 13.7.1998, but the same was also dishonoured on 29.7.1998. The complainant thereafter issued subsequent notice to the petitioner on 3.8.1998 and then filed the complaint before the court concerned on 9.9.1998.

7. It is thus clear that the complainant/respondent no. 3 had already issued notice to the petitioner on 5.6.1998 which was received by the petitioner. Therefore, the cause of action arose with the complainant on the basis of the first notice issued on 5.6.1998. The complainant could not have got the benefit of the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act in filing the complaint on the basis of subsequent notice allegedly issued by him on 3.8.1998.