ORDER:

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 is filed by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking to quash the proceedings against him, in C.C.No.121 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore, registered for the offence punishable under Section 138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act,1881.2

2. The facts which led to the filing of this petition, in brief, are:

2.1. It is the complainant’s case that the Petitioner/Accused borrowed a sum of Rs.14 lakhs from Respondent No.2/Complainant on 15.11.2010 for his business necessities and executed a demand promissory note on the even date, agreeing to repay the same with interest @12% per annum. After repeated demands of the complainant, Accused issued a cheque bearing No.590781 dated 27.03.2013 for a sum of Rs.17,85,000/-.

1 for short ‘Cr.P.C’

2 for short ‘the N.I. Act’

2.2. On presentation of the same by the complainant before his banker HDFC, Nellore on 28.03.2013, the same was returned with endorsement “Insufficient Funds”. On advice of the Accused, the complainant represented the cheque on 09.04.2013 and the same was also returned with an endorsement dated

10.04.2013 for “Insufficient Funds”.

2.3. Thereafter, the complainant got issued a registered notice on 29.04.2013 requesting the Accused to discharge the debt due under the promissory note within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice.

2.4. Having received the said notice on 30.04.2013, Accused neither paid the amount nor gave any reply. Hence, the complainant filed the present complaint and the same was numbered as C.C.No.98 of 2013 on the file of the Court of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore. Subsequently, the said case was transferred to the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore and renumbered as C.C.No.121 of 2018.

2.5. This C.C. is sought to be quashed herein by the Petitioner. Hence Crl.P.

Grounds Sought for Quashment

3. Being aggrieved by the complaint lodged by Respondent No.2/Complainant, the Petitioner/Accused filed the present petition on the following grounds:

3.1. Petitioner neither received any notice nor executed any promissory note, and has also not issued cheque in favour of the complainant.

3.2. Legal notice issued by Respondent No.2 is not a valid one, vide Section

138(b) of the N.I. Act, as there was no demand of the cheque amount, instead demand of entire due amount under the promissory note, was made. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in K.R. Indira v. Adinarayana3 and Suman Sethi v. Ajay K. Churiwal and another4 and of this Court in Matta Rambabu v. State of A.P. and another5.

Arguments Advanced at the Bar

4. Heard Sri Soma Harinath Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri M. Gowtham, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. Perused the material that is available on the record.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused in elaboration to the grounds stated in the Petition, would submit that the legal notice that was issued by the complainant is contrary to Section 138(b) of the Act. Learned counsel would seek the quashment of the present complaint, as the notice is invalid as the complainant cannot demand either more or less amount than the cheque amount.

5.1. To buttress this contention, he placed reliance on K.R. Indira (referred supra) wherein referring to Suman Sethi (referred supra), it was held that when notice is issued not for a specific amount covered by the cheque, but for repayment of loan, the notice is imperfect and a complaint cannot be sustained. Further, reliance was placed on the decision rendered by this Court in Matta Rambabu (referred supra), wherein Accused was acquitted, holding that invalid notice under Section 138(b) of the N.I. Act vitiates the entire proceedings. On this count, Learned Counsel would seek quashment of the present complaint.

6. Contras