ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., sought to be quashed on the short point that the statutory notice under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act not served to the complainant, which is mandated and required under the statute.

2. According to the petitioner, he and the respondent had business transaction as supplier and agent of pillows. Earlier the petitioner was carrying on business at 27, Kuppusamy Street, Balaji Nagar, Padi, Chennai till the month of July 2017. Thereafter he shifted the business to No.37, V.S.Mani Nagar, Sri Sai Nagar, Madhavaram, Chennai and the goods were supplied by the complainant to the new address. In the year 2016, the petitioner was forced to discontinue the distributorship and entered into a memo with the complainant in a specific terms that the outstanding from the customers has to be collected by the complainant and the security deposit of Rs.7,00,000/- has to be adjusted towards the dues payable. While so, the complaint under Section 138 of N.I.Act registered based on the cheque dated 23.03.2018 for a sum of Rs.20,69,496/- purported to be presented for collection and on return of the cheque “Payment stopped by the drawer”.

3. The contention of the petitioner herein is that the complainant has not complied the statutory requirement of causing notice to the drawer of the cheque before filing the complaint. The alleged notice purported to have been sent by the complainant to his address at 27, Kuppusamy Street, Balaji Nagar, Padi, Chennai and returned with a postal endorsement “Customer Shifted”. Having fully known about the new address of the petitioner, the notice has been sent deliberately to the wrong address and the complaint has been filed. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be quashed for want of cause of action.

4. Relying upon the language employed in the statute under Section 142 of the N.I.Act, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the trial Court has erred in taking cognizance of the offence when the complainant has failed to place on record that he had caused notice to the drawer intimating that the cheque issued by him has been returned. Relying upon Section 138 (b) of N.I.Act, he further submitted that the payee or the holder of the cheque has to make the demand for the payment of cheque amount by giving written notice to the drawer of the cheque within 30 days on receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid. In this instant case, the complainant had received the intimation from the bank on 01.05.2018 and the statutory notice was caused on 26.05.2018 which was returned with a postal endorsement “Customer Shifted” on 28.05.2018. The said notice having deliberately sent to a wrong address cannot be construed as the compliance of the mandate under Section 138(c ) of N.I.Act.

5. In support of his submission, the learned counsel also relying upon the judgment of this Court rendered in K.Manoharan Vs. N.Kamatchi Reddiar reported in MANU/TN/4829/2019 by this Court following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Ragul Builders Vs. M/s.Arihant Fertilizers & Chemical and another [MANU/SC/4139/2007].

6. The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant per contra submitted that it is a matter for trial. Even if the statutory notice sent to the wrong address, the honest debtor could have discharged the debt soon after the receipt of the summons of the Court and therefore, for non service of notice the petitioner/accused cannot seek quashing of the complaint. In support of his submissions the learned counsel would rely upon the passage of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Alavi Haji Vs. Palapetty Muhammed & Anr, in the said judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt about the purported reason for causing demand notice before filing the complaint. In that context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has said that the reason for c