The issuance of a legal notice to the correct address is sufficient for maintaining a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, regardless of whether the notice was received by the drawer.

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.245 of 2017 on the file of Special Magistrate Court, Nuzvid for the offence under Sections 138, 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, [for short ‘N.I.Act’] and Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, [for short ‘ IPC’]

2. The facts of the case, in epitome, are as follows:

a) The Petitioner/Accused borrowed an amount of Rs.12.00 lakhs from the original complainant on 28.01.2013 and executed a promissory note to that effect. Thereafter, the Accused failed to discharge the said debt. After repeated demands made by the Complainant, the Accused had issued a cheque bearing No.176894 dated 27.12.2013 for Rs.14,64,000/- payable at Karur Vysya Bank Limited, Poranki Branch towards discharge of the said debt. On presentation of the said cheque before State Bank of Hyderabad, Nuzvid branch on 31.12.2013, the same was dishonoured with an endorsement “Payment stopped by drawer and account closed”.

b) Subsequently, the Complainant got issued a registered legal notice to the Accused on 16.01.2014 and the Accused intentionally evaded to receive the said notice and the same was returned. As such, again the Complainant had sent notice to the Accused on 24.01.2014 and the same was also returned with an endorsement “Addressee Left”. As the Accused failed to discharge the said debt, the present complaint was filed. As the original complainant died on 17.08.2018, his father, who was his only legal representative, was brought on record as Complainant No.2 and subsequently, in view of the death of Complainant No.2, Respondent Nos.2 to 5, who are his legal representatives, were brought on record.

c) Aggrieved by the registration of the said case, the Petitioner/Accused filed the present petition seeking quashment of the case against him.

Arguments Advanced at the Bar

3. Heard Sri C.Nageswara Rao, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri P.Ananta Nageswara Rao, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Y.Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 5.

4. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that there is no legally enforceable debt against the Petitioner and there are no ingredients to attract the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the statutory notices were not served on the Petitioner. It is submitted that the present complaint was filed beyond the period of limitation and on that ground only the present complaint has to be quashed. Hence, prayed for quashment of the case against the Petitioner. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in MSR Leathers v. S.Palaniappan and another, [(2013) 1 SCC 177] and N.Harishara Krishnan v. J.Thomas, [(2018) 13 SCC 663]

Point for determination:

5. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is:

Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused in C.C.No.245 of 2017 on the file of Special Magistrate Court, Nuzvid?

Determination by the Court:

6. A bare perusal of Section 482 Cr.P.C makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 Cr.P.C jurisdiction is not functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal