1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of complaint No. 279 of 2021, titled "Sanjeev Vaid v. Smt. Uma Rani", pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Paonta Sahib (learned Trial Court). (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner - accused for the commission of an offence punishable under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). It was asserted that the accused and the complainant were known to each other. The accused required money for her domestic purposes, so she borrowed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from the complainant in June 2019. The accused promised to repay Rs.75,000/- in cash and the balance amount through cheque. She issued post - dated cheque dated 19.02.2021 for Rs.7,25,000/- drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Bhamian Khurd, Mundian Kalan, Ludhiana, Punjab, to discharge her legal liability. The accused failed to repay the money; hence, the complainant presented the cheque to his bank, Punjab National Bank, from where it was sent to the bank of the accused. The bank of the accused dishonoured the cheque with an endorsement 'Insufficient Funds'. The complainant served a notice upon the accused asking her to repay the amount within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the notice. The accused refused to receive the demand notice. She failed to repay the amount. Hence, a complaint was filed before the learned Trial Court for taking action, as per the law.

3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to proceed against the accused and ordered the issuance of the summons.

4. Being aggrieved by the filing of the complaint and issuance of the summons, the accused has filed the present petition for quashing of the complaint and the consequential proceedings. It was asserted that the essential ingredient of S.138 of the NI Act, that the cheque was issued towards the legally enforceable debt or liability, is absent. The cheque was issued on an oral request. No written promissory note, loan agreement or acknowledgement exists to demonstrate any legally enforceable debt or liability. The complaint is to be filed within one month from the date of the cause of action. The notice was issued on 16.03.2021, which was returned to the complainant on 25.03.2021. The statutory period of 15 days is to be calculated from the date of refusal, i.e. 22.03.2021. The criminal complaint was filed on 25.11.2021, much beyond the statutory period of one month for filing the complaint. The legal notice was not served upon the accused because she was not residing at the address furnished by her. She has been residing outside India since June 2019, and the refusal to accept the delivery does not constitute a valid service. The presumption of service can be drawn when the notice is sent to the correct address. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the complaint, as well as consequential proceedings arising out of the complaint, be quashed.

5. Mr. Shivank Singh Panta, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is residing outside India and the notice issued to her was not served. The cheque was not issued in discharge of the legal liability, and the complaint was filed beyond the period of limitation. Continuation of the proceedings before the learned Trial Court amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the complaint, as well as consequential proceedings arising out of the same, be quashed. He relied upon the judgments of R.L.Varma and Sons (Huf) v. P.C. Sharma (2019) 263 DLT 586, and Jugesh Sehgal v. Shamsher Singh Gogi, 2009 (14) SCC 683 : (AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2022), in support of his submission.

6. I have given considerable thought to his su