HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Reserved on 25.04.2025 Pronounced on 02.05.2025 CRM(M) No. 798/2022 CrlM No. 1659/2022 Pawan Kumar …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr. Anil Khajuria, Advocate vs Ranbir Singh .…. Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. V Bhushan Gupta, Advocate Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

1. The respondent had filed a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(for short „the Act‟) in respect of dishonour of two cheques i.e. cheque bearing No. 909039 dated 20.01.2021 for an amount of Rs. 10 lacs and cheque bearing No. 909040 dated 26.01.2021 for an amount of Rs. 11 lacs before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua, subsequently assigned to the Court of learned District Mobile Magistrate, Kathua, (hereinafter to be referred as “the trial court”).

2. The learned trial court vide order dated 10.09.2021 issued the process against the petitioner for commission of offence under section 138 of the Act. The respondent had relied upon the notice dated 28.04.2021, stated to have been served upon the petitioner, in order to fulfil the statutory requirement for filing the complaint under Section 138 of the Act.

3. The petitioner had preferred a revision against the order dated

10.09.2021 passed by the learned trial court before the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Kathua but without any success, as the revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 15.09.2022. This is how this petition has come up before this Court, whereby the petitioner has assailed the order dated 10.09.2021 passed by the learned trial court and order dated 15.09.2022 passed by the court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kathua.

4. It is contended by the petitioner that in the notice relied upon by the respondent for filing the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, the respondent had made a demand of Rs. 50,000/- as cheque amount from him within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of that notice, therefore the notice being defective in nature could not have formed the basis for issuance of process against the petitioner for commission of offence under section 138 of the Act, for dishonour of two cheques amounting to Rs. 21 lacs.

5. Mr. Anil Khajuria, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that once the notice was defective, the respondent could not have filed the complaint against the petitioner on account of dishonour of two cheques amounting to Rs. 21 lacs in total. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M/s Rahul Builders v M/s. Arihant Fertilizers and Chemicals and another,(2008) 2 SCC 321 and K. R. Indira v Dr. G. Adinarayana, (2003) 8 SCC 300

6. Per contra, Mr. Ved Bhushan Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent, in turn, has submitted that the respondent had made the demand of amount in lieu of dishonoured cheques and in the notice, it is specifically mentioned that the petitioner has issued two cheques amounting to Rs. 21 lacs and payment were demanded in respect of same amount but due to typographical error, an amount Rs. 50,000/-

was written in place of Rs. 21 lacs in the notice in question.

7. Heard and perused the record.

8. A perusal of the record annexed with the petition reveals that cheque bearing No. 909039 dated 20.01.2021 amounting of Rs. 10 lacs and cheque No. 909040 dated 26.01.2021 amounting of Rs. 11 lacs form the subject matter of the compliant, titled,„Ranbir Singh vs Pawan Kumar‟ pending before the learned trial court. This is also true that in para-1 of notice dated 28.04.2021, the respondent has specifically stated that in order to discharge the past liability, the petitioner had issued two cheques mentioned above and these cheques were dishonoured vide memo dated 16.04.2021, but in the last para, where the formal demand was made by the respondent to make the payment of amount in lieu of cheques, figure of Rs