Advocates:
['VIKALP GUPTA', '', 'CHANCHAL JAIN', 'AKRITI SHREE', 'SAMEER SAHAY', 'KUSHAL KUMAR', 'TANYA SINGH', 'KUMAR PAWAN', 'RAJIV RANJAN', '', 'ABDUL ALLAM', 'SR ADV', 'FAISAL ALLAM', 'FAHAD ALLAM']

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

----

Cr.M.P. No. 1627 of 2022

----

Arup Chatterjee, aged about 48 years, son of Sri Anup Chatterjee, resident

of 303, Madgul Habitat, Chandni Chowk, PO Kanke Road, PS Gonda,

District Ranchi

….. Petitioner

-- Versus --

1.The State of Jharkhand

2.Bank of India, Kantatoli Branch, Ranchi, represented through Mr. Sunil

Lakra, son of late Marcus Lakra, Ex-Senior Manager, Bank of India, PO, PS

Kantatoli, District Ranchi

…... Opposite Parties

----

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate

Ms. Aparajita Bhardwaj, Advocate

For the State :- A.P.P.

For the O.P.No.2

:- Mr. A. Allam, Sr. Advocate

----

3/13.07.2022

This petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal

proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No.722 of 2016 including

order taking cognizance dated 06.03.2017 passed by the learned Judicial

Magistrate, Ranchi whereby cognizance of offence under section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has been taken and summons has

been directed to be issued against the petitioner, pending in the court of

Judicial Magistrate-VIII, Ranchi.

The complaint has been lodged alleging therein that the

petitioner on behalf of M/s Media Eleven Pvt. Ltd. approached

the

respondent

bank

for

a

cash

credit

facility

of

Rs.1,25,00,000/- in capacity of a Director and accordingly the

same was granted to M/s Media Eleven Pvt. Ltd. In view of the

repayment of the above said loan the petitioner on behalf of

M/s Media Eleven Pvt. Ltd. issued a cheque being No.197975

dated 05.02.2016 of Rs.4,00,000/- of Axis Bank, Ranchi Branch,

Ranchi.

It is further alleged that on deposition of the cheque by

the respondent bank the same was bounced and returned

unpaid by the Axis Bank, Ranchi Branch, Ranchi with remarks

8payment stopped by drawer9. Thereafter even after serving

legal notice dated 26.02.2016 by the respondent and

requesting for the payment of the dishonored cheque the same

2

did not take place.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits

that the cheque issued by the petitioner was dishonoured and returned

back by the banker unpaid with return memo dated 08.02.2016 for the

reason that 8payment stopped by the drawer9 and the complainant

thereafter sent a demand notice through his lawyer by registered post on

26.02.2016 under section 138 N.I.Act, however, when the cheque

amount remained unpaid then this complaint was filed by the

complainant on 17.03.2016.

She further submits that the cognizance is also not in

accordance with law and the judicial mind has not been applied in taking

cognizance. She further submits that the case has been filed prematurely

as in the light of section 138(c) of the Negotiable Instruments Act

(hereinafter referred to as the N.I.Act) 15 days was required to be looked

into by the complainant however without looking into the statutory

provision the complaint has been filed which is premature. She relied by

on the case of 8Subodh S.Salaskar v. Jayprakash M.Shan and Another,

(2008) 13 SCC 689. Paragraph no.20, 22, 23, 25 are quoted below:

<20. The legal notice admittedly was issued on 17-1-

2001. It was sent by speed post. It was supposed to be

served within a couple of days. A bare perusal of the

statements made in Para 10 of the complaint petition, as

quoted hereinbefore, clearly demonstrates that although

the actual date of service of notice was allegedly not

known, the complainant proceeded on the basis that the

same was served within a reasonable period, otherwise in

absence of service of notice or deemed service thereof,

the question of non-compliance with clause (c) of the

proviso appended to S