A notice for the purpose of Section 138 of the NI Act must be specific and issued after receiving information of the cheque being returned unpaid. Excessive demands in a notice, in addition to the amount of the dishonoured cheque, do not invalidate the notice if the demand for the dishonoured amount is specific and valid.

Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

The present one is the third petition in this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ['CrPC'] by the petitioner, who is sought to be proceeded against for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [hereinafter referred to as "the NI Act"] in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Garo Hills, Tura in C.R. Case No.266 of 2015.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, relevant aspects of the matter are as follows: The complainant/respondent has filed the complaint case aforesaid under Sections 138/142 of the NI Act while alleging dishonour of two cheques issued by the present petitioner, the particulars whereof are as under :

"(i) Cheque No.892545, dated 26.05.2015 for an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) drawn on State Bank of India, Guwahati Branch, Assam.

(ii) Cheque No.125335, dated 02.06.2015, for an amount of Rs.16,50,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only) drawn on The Naini Tal Bank Ltd, Gaziabad Branch."

3. The complainant/respondent submitted in his complaint that the aforesaid cheque bearing number 892545 dated 26.05.2015, when presented for collection, was returned unpaid by the petitioner's Banker with the remark "insufficient funds" under the Cheque Returning Memo dated 28.05.2015. The respondent further submitted that the other cheque bearing number 125335 dated 02.06.2015 for an amount of Rs.16,50,000/- was also returned unpaid by the petitioner's Banker with the remarks "opening balance insufficient". The respondent did not state in his complaint the date of Returning Memo concerning this cheque number 125335 but the learned counsel for the petitioner has shown the relevant part of the document during the course of hearing; and it remains rather indisputable that the said Cheque Returning Memo was issued by the petitioner's Banker on 10.06.2015. This particular date of Returning Memo of cheque number 125335 carries relevance in this matter, as shall be noticed a little later. 4. The respondent asserted in his complaint that he verbally informed the petitioner about fate of the cheque but upon the petitioner paying no heed to the request, he was compelled to serve a notice through the lawyer on 11.06.2015, calling upon the petitioner to make payment of the dishonoured 'cheque' within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The assertions of the respondent, as occurring in paragraph 10 of the complaint, for their relevance, are reproduced as under:-

"That consequent upon the dishonour of the said cheque the Complainant verbally informed the Opposite Party about the fate of the said cheque and requested him to make the payment forthwith but the complainant did not pay any heed to the complainant's requests as a result of which the Complainant was compelled to serve the Notice upon the Opposite Party through his Counsel on 11.06.2015 calling upon him to make the payment of the dishonoured cheque within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice."

4. It could be noticed that in the aforesaid assertions, the complainant specifically referred to 'the dishonoured cheque' in singular at three places and not in plural. The respondent further referred to the reply received by him of the notice so served and while maintaining that the allegations of the petitioner in the reply were false and baseless, proceeded to assert that the petitioner had issued the aforesaid cheques dishonestly, while knowing well that there was not enough money in his bank account to honour the cheque. Though in paragraph 13 of the petition, the complainant/respondent at some places mentioned about 'cheques' but in paragraph 17, again, asserted about 'cheque' in singular.

5. At this juncture, the contents of the notice served on behalf of the complainant/respondent demanding payment need to be taken note of. This notice demanding payment was issued on behalf of the complainant respondent by his lawyer on 11.06.201