यह मामला जामू और कश्मीर उच्च न्यायालय का है, जिसमें अभियोजक ने एक शिकायत दायर की है जिसमें आरोप है कि आरोपी ने दो चेक जारी किए थे, जिनमें से एक बैंक में जमा करने पर पैसे नहीं मिले। शिकायतकर्ता ने नोटिस भेजा था, जो कि आरोपी को उसकी सही पते पर भेजा गया था, लेकिन वह वापस लौट आया क्योंकि आरोपी के परिवार के सदस्य नोटिस प्राप्त करने से इनकार कर गए थे। इसके बावजूद, शिकायतकर्ता ने यह दावा किया कि आरोपी को नोटिस का ज्ञान था और उसने भुगतान करने से इनकार कर दिया।

मामले में यह सवाल उठाया गया कि क्या नोटिस की सेवा सही तरीके से पूरी हुई है या नहीं, और क्या आरोपी ने जानबूझकर नोटिस से बचने का प्रयास किया है। अदालत ने माना कि नोटिस सही पते पर भेजा गया हो और वह वापस लौटा हो, तो यह मानना उचित है कि आरोपी को नोटिस का ज्ञान हो सकता है। हालांकि, यह साबित करने की जिम्मेदारी आरोपी पर है कि उसने जानबूझकर नोटिस को प्राप्त करने से इनकार किया या सेवा को रोकने के लिए कोई दुष्प्रचार किया।

अदालत ने यह भी माना कि इस स्तर पर यह तय करना संभव नहीं है कि आरोपी ने नोटिस का ज्ञान कब और कैसे प्राप्त किया, और यह भी कि नोटिस के प्राप्त होने या न होने का निर्णय परीक्षण के दौरान ही किया जाएगा। इसलिए, अभी इस मामले में प्रक्रिया जारी रहेगी और आरोपियों के खिलाफ चालान जारी रहेगा।

अंत में, अदालत ने यह निर्णय दिया कि इस मामले को अभी ही खारिज नहीं किया जा सकता, क्योंकि इन प्रश्नों का समाधान परीक्षण के दौरान ही संभव है। अतः, आरोपी की याचिका खारिज कर दी गई और मामले को आगे की सुनवाई के लिए रखा गया।

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT SRINAGAR

Reserved on: 21.12.2022

Pronounced on: 30.12.2022

CRM(M) No.520/2022

ABDUL BARI GANIE

... PETITIONER(S)

Through: - M/S: Tariq M. Shah and

Mr. Rafiq Ahmad, Advocates.

Vs.

GHULAM HASSAN DAR

…RESPONDENT(S)

Through: - Mr. Aftab Ahmad, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

1)

The petitioner has challenged the complaint filed by

respondent against him alleging commission of offences under

Section 138/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter

referred to as the NI Act). Challenge has also been thrown to order

dated 09.09.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Shopian (hereinafter referred to as the trial Magistrate), whereby

process has been issued against the petitioner.

2)

The respondent (hereinafter referred to as the complainant)

has filed a complaint against the petitioner (hereinafter referred to

as the accused) before the learned trial Magistrate, alleging therein

that the accused has issued two cheques for an amount of Rs.5.00

lacs each in favour of the complainant for discharging his liability

P a g e | 2

towards him. When the cheques in question were presented by the

complainant before the banker of the accused, the same were

returned unpaid on 29^th July, 2022, for insufficiency of funds. The

complainant is stated to have issued a notice of demand to the

accused on 12.08.2022 through registered post but the same was

returned back with the endorsement <the accused was not present

in his home and the family members of the accused refused to

receive the notice=. It has been further pleaded in the complaint

that the accused despite many requests, did not pay the cheque

amount despite having knowledge of the notice of demand. It is

pleaded that the cause of action in favour of the complainant arose

on 27.08.2022 when the accused failed to pay the cheque amount

despite knowledge of the notice of demand. The complaint has been

filed before the trial court on 9^th September, 2022.

3)

The learned trial Magistrate after recording the preliminary

evidence and after recording satisfaction that the offence under

Section 138 of the NI Act is made out against the accused, issued

process against him in terms of order dated 09.09.2022.

4)

It has been contended in the petition that the complainant

has filed the impugned complaint before the trial Magistrate

prematurely, inasmuch as the notice of demand has been issued on

12.08.2022 and in the complaint it is pleaded that the cause of

action in favour of the complainant has arisen on 27.08.2022. Thus,

P a g e | 3

according to the accused, the statutory period of fifteen days had

not expired after the date of issuance of notice of demand. It has

been further contended that the notice of demand was not served

upon the accused, which is an essential requirement to give rise to

cause of action in favour of a complainant in a cheque bound case.

3)

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material on record.

4)

The first contention of the petitioner is that the complaint has

been filed prematurely by the complainant as the notice of demand

was issued on 12.08.2022 but without waiting for expiry of fifteen

days after the service of notice, the complainant has filed the

impugned complaint. It has been submitted that in para (8) of the

complaint it has been pleaded that the cause of action accrued to

the complainant on 27.08.2022, meaning thereby that fifteen days

had not expired from the date of issuance of demand notice.

5)

The argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is

without any merit for the reason that the notice of demand had

been issued on 12.08.2022 but the complaint has been presented

before the court on 09.09.2022 and not on 27.08.2022, though the

complainant has pleaded that the cause of action had accrued in his

favour o