ORDER

1. Revisional powers of this Court under section 397 read with section 401, CrPC are invoked assailing the revisional order dated 3.9.2014 passed by ASJ, Picchore, District Shivpuri allowing revision of the accused/respondent herein and in the process, setting aside the order of taking cognizance of an offence u/s. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity’ ‘1881 Act') passed by the trial Court on 19.2.2014.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner is heard on the question of admission and final disposal.

3. The moot question which begs for an answer herein is as to whether in the absence of any subsequent presentation and dishonour of the cheque which has been dishonoured once, is the complaint filed by the complainant after expiry of statutory period of one month u/s. 142 (b) of the 1881 Act, be entertainable based on the plea of complainant that on sending further notices to the accused, assurances were extended by the accused of paying the debt in question.

4. The skeleton facts necessary for disposal of this petition are detailed below in a chronological manner for ready reference and convenience:

5. On the aforesaid factual matrix, it is vivid that after the period of one month prescribed u/s. 142 (b) of filing of complaint calculated from the receipt of first notice of demand by the accused on 14.1.2013, the complainant/petitioner did not present the cheque in question again to the bank and instead continued to dispatch further demand notices to accused on the plea that assurance were given by accused of repaying the debt.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on three Judge Bench decision of this Court in Vipul Shital Prasad Agarwal v. State of Gujarat reported in (2013) 1 SCC 197 with special emphasis to content of paragraph 24 to 35 and to the recent decision of the apex Court in M/s. Sicagen India Limited v. Mahindra Vadineni & Ors. passed in Cr. A. No. 26-27 of 2019 on 8.1.2019 and the judgment of the single bench of this Court in the case of Devdatt Bharadwaj v. Santosh Verma decided on 4.11.2015.

6.1 It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that once the prescribed statutory period of one month u/s. 142 (b) for presentation of complaint in the Court expires, the complainant is not obliged to present the cheque again in the Bank and get it dishonoured since the complainant by virtue of proviso of section 142 (b) can always seek condonation of delay in preferring the complainant before the trial Court.

6.2 It is further contended that the repeat demand notices sent by the complainant to the accused, even after expiry of statutory period of 30 days u/S. 142(b) for preferring a complaint before the trial Court, confer fresh cause of action to the complainant to f