This Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner – Naresh Kumar who is facing the trial in Criminal Case No. 419 of 2003, under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, pending in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate I, Haridwar.

2. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by one – Ramji Das Agarwal/respondent No. 3 against the petitioner stating therein that the petitioner on the false pretext that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was due towards the petitioner and in lieu of that he issued the advanced cheque for Rs. 5,000/- belonging to Oriental Bank of Commerce Ltd. in favour of the respondent No. 3 but when the cheque was produced before the Bank it was returned unpaid due to insufficient fund. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3 sent a registered notice to the petitioner on 04.07.2001 through advocate and after receiving the notice, the petitioner apologized and assured that after 4-5 days again when the cheque will be presented, it will be honoured. The respondent No. 3 – Ramji Das Agarwal/complainant again produced the cheque on 26.07.2001, but it was dishonoured again. The Bank intimated with regard to this on 28.07.2001, thereafter the complainant met with petitioner – Naresh Kumar at his house but he refused to pay the money back. The complainant thereafter sent the registered notice again on 31.07.2001 and this notice was not accepted by the petitioner, hence, the complaint was filed by the complainant/respondent No. 3 on 24.08.2001. After filing the complaint the statement of complaint was recorded under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter, statements of witnesses were also recorded under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. The court below thereafter on 12.02.2002 passed the order that prima facie case against the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act is made out and directed the petitioner to appear before the Court for facing the trial.

3. The petitioner, on the ground that no offence against him is made out and the proceedings initiated against him is absolutely an abuse of process of court and filed this petition for quashing the proceedings of the criminal case.

4. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 3 in spite of sufficient service of notice. Therefore, heard Sri Lalit Miglani, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and perused the record.

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

6. The complaint filed by the respondent No. 3 is contained as annexure No. 1 to the petition, which shows that the cheque was issued to the complainant by the petitioner on 28.06.2001 and it was dishonoured by the Bank on 04.07.2001. The complainant, further presented the cheque with the bank on 26.07.2001 but again bounced which the intimation was received by the complainant on 28.07.2001. Thereafter, the complainant issued the notice to the petitioner on 31.07.2001 but the notice was not received by the petitioner. However, the first notice was issued to the petitioner as per allegation made in the complaint on 04.07.2001 which was received by the petitioner and he made the request that in case, the cheque is further presented with the Bank after few days it will be honoured. The allegation made in the complainant reveals that when the cheque was further presented before the Bank, it was again dishonoured as well as the complainant thereafter issued subsequent notice to the petitioner on 31.07.2001 and subsequently filed the complaint before the court concerned on 24.08.2001.

7. It is thus clear that the complainant/respondent No. 3 had already issued notice to the petitioner on 04.07.2001 which was received by