Point of Law :
service of notice in terms of Section 138 proviso (b) of the NI Act was a part of the cause of action for lodging the complaint and communication to the accused about the fact of dishonouring of the cheque and calling upon to pay the amount within 15 days was imperative in character, commends itself to us. As noticed by us earlier, no complaint can be maintained against the drawer of the cheque before the expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice because the drawer/accused cannot be said to have committed any offence until then. We approve the decision of this Court in Sarav Investment & Financial Consultancy and also the judgments of the High Courts which have taken the view following this judgment that the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act filed before the expiry of 15 days of service of notice could not be treated as a complaint in the eye of law and criminal proceedings initiated on such complaint are liable to be quashed.”

1. The petitioner by name P.Narasimha is the accused in CC.Nos.784, 794 & 844 of 2012, which are cases maintained against him respectively by T. Naveen Singh in all the cases for the respective offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act that was taken cognizance and are pending before the learned XVIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad at Erramanzil.

2. It is after appearance from the summons at post cognizance stage impugning the same he filed the quash petitions with contentions that contents of the very complaint filed respectively by the complainant-2nd respondent are untrue, incorrect and there is no legally enforceable debt and from the very contents of the complaint from the date of alleged issuance of cheque to the date the cheque presented it is beyond 6 months and thereby the 3 cheques in question are outdated and that was also the return by the bank all the 3 cheques are outdated. The other contention is cheques pertain to Axis Bank whereas presented in ICICI bank though to be presented within the jurisdiction of accused banker and thereby the cognizance and continuation of the case proceedings in 3 cases are liable to be quashed.

3. The quash petitions are filed in December 2014 respectively from the law prevailing by then. There is amendment to the NI Act on the jurisdiction aspect with retrospective effect after the expression of the Apex Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra (2014) 9 SCC 129) practically restoring the legal position of K. Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan (1999) 7 SCC 510) with reference to Sections 177 & 178 Cr.P.C. for the offence under Sections 138 to 142 of NI Act a complaint to be filed as per Section 2 Cr.P.C. to take cognizance under Section 190 Cr.P.C. r/w Sections 200 to 204 Cr.P.C.

4. The 2nd respondent complainant even served failed to attend, proof filed. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner respectively and learned Public Prosecutor representing the 1st respondent-State and taken as heard the complainant and perused the material on record.

5. So far as the jurisdiction aspect raised it has no legs to stand from the law prevailing as on date but for to say left open any further defence before the trial Court to consider on own merits equally as to the truth of the complaint allegations as to the liability for not a case of cheque not rooted from the account and not even a case of cheque not bear the signature of the accused respectively to apply the presumptions under Sections 118 r/w 139 of the NI Act with reference to the expression of the Apex Court in Rangappa Vs. Mohan (AIR 2010 SC 1898).

6. Having regard to the above how far that decision apply to the facts is also a matter left open to agitate in defence before the trial Court in this regard.

7. Now the crucial aspect to decide from the material placed on record with reference to the cheque return memo of cheque not presented within 6 months concerned, the respective 3 cheques particulars of date of issue and date of presentation viz., cheque No.021899 dated 22.06.2011 in CC.No.784 of 2012 in Crl.P.No.15547 of 2018; Cheque No.021897 dated 22.06.2011 in CC.No.844 of 2012 in Crl.P.No.15548 of 2018 and Cheque No.021898 dated 22.06.2011 in CC.No.794 of 2012 in Crl.P.No.15560 of 2018. All the three cheques were presented on 22.12.2011.

8. Now the core issue in deciding the above crucial aspect with reference to the facts is whether the cheque not presented within the then prevailing validity time of 6 months from the date it was drawn respectively.

9. From the scheme of the provisions, Sections 138 and 142 of the Act, it is seen that a cheque can be presented to the Bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier. Thus the period of validity is within a period of six months (within three months from 1st April, 2012-13 as per RBI guidelines) from the date on which it is drawn or within t