Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(AP) 19703
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J
Kavuri Augasteen – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
CRLP 1548/2022
MAGANTI SAI KRISHNA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
A legal notice under Section 138 of the N.I. Act must specifically demand the cheque amount; failure to do so renders it invalid.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Quashing of proceedings - Petition filed to quash proceedings for dishonor of cheque due to invalid statutory notice - Notice failed to specify cheque amount, violating Proviso (b) of Section 138 - Similarity with prior ruling established. (Paras 3, 6, 8, 10)
(B) Legal notice - Validity - A legal notice must specifically demand payment of the cheque amount to be valid under Section 138 - General demands or vague notices do not meet statutory requirements. (Paras 6, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner faced trial for issuing a dishonored cheque of Rs.5,00,000/- without a valid notice demanding payment of the cheque amount, which was not specified in the notice or complaint.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the statutory notice was invalid due to the lack of a specific demand for the cheque amount, leading to the quashing of proceedings.
Issues: The main issue was whether the statutory notice complied with the requirements of Section 138, specifically regarding the specification of the cheque amount.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a notice lacking a specific demand for the cheque amount does not fulfill the requirements of Proviso (b) of Section 138, and thus, proceedings based on such notice are an abuse of process.
Result: Criminal petition allowed, proceedings quashed.
ORDER
The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, [for short ‘Cr.P.C’] has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking to quash the proceedings against him, in C.C.No.462 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kandukur, registered for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, [for short ‘the N.I. Act’]
2. Heard Sri Maganti Sai Krishna, learned counsel for the Petitioner. Though notice served on Respondent No.2, he did not choose to appear before this Court to submit his objections. Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is in attendance.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner is the Accused, who is facing trial in C.C.No.462 of 2017 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Learned counsel would further submit that, in the light of Proviso (b) of Section 138 of N.I.Act, the statutory notice sent by Respondent No.2 is not a valid one, since, there is no mention about the alleged cheque amount. Learned counsel further would submit that, since there is no specific demand as to the payment of the cheque amount, the demand is a fake one. Therefore, it cannot be considered as a valid notice under Proviso (b) of Section 138 of N.I.Act. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Somisetty Purushotham Kumar Vs. State of A.P., and Others, [2024 SCC OnLine AP 631]
4. As can be seen from the record, the case of Respondent No.2 is that the Petitioner/Accused borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from him on 30.04.2015 and executed a promissory note in his favour agreement to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum. Petitioner/Accused had been postponing the repayment of the amount on one pretext or the other, and finally on 29.06.2016, he had issued a cheque bearing No.021421 drawn on Corporation Bank, Chirala towards part satisfaction of the debt. On presentation, the said cheque was returned with an endorsement “funds insufficient”. Then, Respondent No.2 got issued a legal notice dated 19.07.2016 to the Petitioner/Accused to discharge the cheque amount, but there is no response from him.
5. The statutory notice, which was issued by Respondent No.2/Complainant is placed on record. It is beneficial to extract the said notice for better appreciation of the arguments advance, which is as follows:
LEGAL NOTICE Under the instruction of my client Sri Renumala Suresh S/o Devaiah, Binginapalli Village, Singarayakonda Mandal, Prakasam District, I hereby Issue the following Legal Notice to you.
On 30-4-2015 that you borrowed a sum of Rs 5,00,000/- from my client at Singaraya Konda Village and executed a Promissory note in favour of my client agreeing to re pay the same at the rate of interest 24% p.a. My client made several repeated demands on you by in person but that you are postponing the same on some pre text or other. Finally on 29-6-22016 that you issued a cheque bearing No. 21421 drawn Corporation Bank Chirala towards part satisfaction of the debt. My client presented the same in Andhra Bank, Singarayakonda Village, the same was returned to my client on 08-07- 2016 with an endorsement of funds in sufficient.
Hence it is here by called upon you to discharge the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of this notice. Otherwise my client will be constrained to file a case in the court of law with appropriate relief's.
ONGOLE.
22-07-2016 Advocate
6. A cursory look at the above notice would clearly show that, there is no mention about the amount for which, the subject cheque was issued. Further, there is no mention about the cheque amount in the complaint filed by Respondent No.2 as well. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the present case is squarely covered by the order of this Court in Somisetty Purushotham Kumar’s case (supra). In the said order, this Court elaborately discussed the validity of
