IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA th ON THE 17 OF DECEMBER, 2024 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 28445 of 2024 RAMSINGH PRAJAPATI Versus RAHUL DIXIT Appearance:

Shri Vipin Babu Sharma- Advocate for applicant.

Shri Arvind Singh – Advocate for respondent.

ORDER

This application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has been filed seeking following relief(s):-

vr% ekuuh; U;k;ky; ls fouez izkFkZuk gS fd vkosnd dh vksj ls izLrqr fofo/k vkijkf/kd vkosnu i= varxZr /kkjk 482 Lohdkj dj f}rh; vfrfjDr l= U;k;k/kh'k egksn; xat cklkSnk ftyk fofn'kk e-iz- dh vkijkf/kd iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk Øekad 9@2023 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 18@4@2024 dks fujLr dj fopkj.k vf/kuLFk U;k;ky; U;kf;d eftLVz~sV izFke Js.kh xat cklkSnk ds izdj.k Øekad ;w,u-lh- vkj-83@2021 jkgqy cuke jkeflag esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukWad 10@12@2022 dks ;Fkkor j[ks tkus dk vkns'k ikfjr djus dh d`ik djs A

2. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that the case in hand is duly covered by order dated 06.12.2024 passed by this Court in the case of Devendra Prajapati Vs. Sachin Dixit in M.Cr.C. No.28446 of 2024. However, it is submitted by counsel for applicant that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vishwanath Ghosh Vs. Ramesh Chandra Sindhi (Cr. R. No. 1569 of Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN

2009), decided on 11.02.2010 reported in 2010(4) MPLJ 99 has held that if first two notices were returned back unserved and if the third notice is issued after the period of 30 days and the same is treated as served, then, even if the third notice was issued after a period of thirty days from the date of return of cheque, still the complaint has to be treated in accordance with law.

3. Heard learned counsel for parties.

4. This Court while deciding the case of Devendra Prajapati (supra) has considered the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of MSR Leathers Vs. S. Palaniappan and another reported in (2013) 1 SCC 177 by which the judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Sadanandan Bhadran Vs. Madhavan Sunil Kumar reported in (1998) 6 SCC 514 was overruled. So far as the judgment passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vishwanath Ghosh (supra) is concerned, the same was primarily passed on a reasoning that if a person successfully dodges the postman for about a month or two or a person who conducts a fake endorsement meant regarding his non-availability can successfully avoid his prosecution because the payee is bound to issue notice to him within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of information from the bank regarding the return of cheque as unpaid. However, after the judgment was pronounced in the case of MSR Leathers (supra) it is clear that a person can present the cheque for number of times and even after issuing a notice can again present a cheque and can again issue a notice under Section 138 of NI Act and accordingly, the judgment passed in the case of Sadanandan Bhadran (supra) was overruled. Earlier, the law was that once a notice under Section 138 of NI Act has been issued, then the cause of action would arise and the cheque cannot be re-presented in the bank. But the situation has changed after the judgment was passed in the case of MSR Leathers (supra)

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN If the complainant had presented the cheque after the return of second notice, then it would have given a fresh life to the proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act and the complainant could have issued a fresh notice to the accused. But if the complainant maintained silence and did not present the cheque during its validity period and continued to issue notices on the basis of return of cheque on 09.01.2020 then the said act of the complainant cannot be protected. This Court in the case of Devendra Prajapati (supra) has held as under:-

This application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has been filed against order dated 01.09.2023 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjbasoda, District Vidisha (M.P