Page 1

JUDGMENT

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1684 OF 2014

ARISING OUT OF

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO. 8924 OF 2013

PAWAN KUMAR RALLI

…

APPELLANT

VERSUS

MANINDER SINGH NARULA

…

RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

N.V. RAMANA, J.

Leave granted.

2.

This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 15^th

January, 2013 of the High Court of Delhi passed in Criminal

Miscellaneous Case No. 2961 of 2012 filed by the respondent herein

under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. By the said

1

Page 2

JUDGMENT

judgment, the High Court quashed the criminal proceedings initiated

by the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,

1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondent.

3.

The brief history of the case, according to the appellant, is that

he had given a loan of Rs.60 lakhs to the respondent in the month of

November, 2011. In discharge of his obligation to the appellant, on

25^th April, 2012, the respondent issued (i) Cheque No. 889953, drawn

on Allahabad Bank, for Rs.30 lakhs; (ii) Cheque No. 545420, drawn

on ICICI Bank, for Rs.20 lakhs; and (iii) Cheque No. 545409, drawn

on ICICI Bank, for Rs. 10 lakhs. When the appellant presented the

said cheques in his Bank for realization, they were dishonoured by

the respondent’s banker with remarks ‘Stop Payment’.

4.

The appellant, after receiving the communication from his

banker about the dishonour of Cheques, issued a handwritten notice

(Annexure P4) to the respondent on 27^th April, 2012 calling upon him

to make the payment. Upon non-compliance by the respondent, a

formal legal notice dated 24^th May, 2012 (Annexpure P5) was issued

under Section 138/142 of the Act requiring the respondent to pay the

cheques amount along with interest and costs. In his reply to the legal

notice, the respondent totally disagreed with the allegation of taking

2

Page 3

JUDGMENT

loan from the appellant. Subsequently, the appellant filed a Complaint

Case against the respondent invoking Sections 138, 141 and 142 of

the Act and Section 420, of the Indian Penal Code. The Metropolitan

Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the respondent who

pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.

During the pendency of trial, the respondent filed Criminal

Miscellaneous Case before the High Court under Section 482,

Cr.P.C. for quashing of criminal proceedings pending before the Trial

Court. The High Court expressed the view that the complaint was not

filed within a period of one month after the expiry of 15 days of receipt

of the notice dated 27^th April, 2012 and hence it was barred by

limitation under Section 142(b) of the Act and by the impugned

judgment quashed the criminal proceedings against the respondent.

Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the appellant-complainant

approached this Court by way of Special Leave Petition.

6.

Before us, the case of the appellant is that the High Court was

not justified in exercising extra ordinary jurisdiction under Section

482, Cr.P.C. The High Court incorrectly considered the handwritten

note as legal notice and calculated the limitation period accordingly.

Whereas, the handwritten note was only an intimation to the accused

3

Page 4

JUDGMENT

and according to the provisions of law, the actual notice within 30

days from the date of dishonour of the cheques, was issued on 24^th

May, 2012 and accordingly criminal proceedings were initiated well

within the limitation period. But, the High Court failed to take into

consideration this material fact and merely on the ground of 25 days

delay from the date of service of handwritten note, quashed the

criminal proceedings. The High Court ignored the fact that the Act

clearly enables the Court to condone the delay, if any, beyond 30

days of limitation period under proviso to Section 142(b) of the Act.

7.

During the course of hearing, w