THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated

03.04.2025 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.201 of 2023 in CC NI No.3 of 2022 on the file of Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parigi, Vikarabad District.

2. Heard Mr.K. Venkatesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Thomas Joseph Lloyd, learned counsel for the respondent No.1-complainant and Ms.Shalini Saxena, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.2-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complainant has not sent the statutory notice to the petitioner on the proper address and that knowingly the notice was sent to a wrong address and thus, the complaint lodged by the complainant under Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘NI Act’) itself is not maintainable. He further has submitted that the complainant has mentioned the correct address of the petitioner in the complaint, but has sent the notice to a wrong address, which shows his malafide intention and hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has submitted that the petitioner has been changing his address very frequently and that they have sent the notice on the correct address and that the petitioner is liable to pay the legally enforceable debt. He further submitted that the present petition is filed just to protract the proceedings and relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ajeet Seeds Limited v. K .Gopala Krishnaiah, (2014) 12 SCC 685 and prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the statutory notice is sent to a wrong address of the petitioner and that the petitioner has not received the same and hence, could not comply with the said notice and since the petitioner was not served with the statutory notice, the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act is not maintainable. Crl.M.P. No.201 of 2023 was filed by the petitioner herein before the trial court under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. seeking dismissal of the complaint on the said ground.

7. A perusal of the copy of the postal cover filed along with the petition reveals that initially the cover was addressed to House No.8-1-77/3/F as mentioned in the present petition and also in the complaint and it was returned with an endorsement saying that ‘addressee moved’ and hence, returned to the sender, which is borne on the face of the returned postal cover. Thus, subsequently, it was again sent to another address i.e.1-77/22/1, but the said cover was also returned with an endorsement ‘insufficient address’ and hence, returned to the sender. However, it is to be noted that change in the address and whether the statutory notice is sent correctly to the petitioner herein or not, is a triable issue and hence, the complaint cannot be dismissed at the threshold. Though the petitioner contends that the complainant has managed the postal authorities, he can as well contest the matter on the said grounds and elicit the truth during the course of trial. Hence, the trial court was right in dismissing the application i.e. Crl.M.P .No.201 of 2023 in CC NI No.3 of 2022.

8. In Ajeet Seeds Limited v. K .Gopala Krishnaiah (cited supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1, the complaint was filed alleging that the cheque issued by the respondent therein for repayment of the legally enforceable debt was bounced and the Magistrate has issued process, then the accused has filed revision application before the Additional Sessions Judge contending that the demand notice was not served on him. The said revision application was rejected. Being aggrieved by the said order, the accused has filed writ petition before the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the High Court quashed the complaint on a short ground that on reading verification of the complaint, it was explicit t