Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2024) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 19031 = 2024(2) L.A.R. 130
(Arising from SLP (Crl.) No. 8171 of 2023)
Decided on: 07.03.2024
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. Uday Prakash Yadav, Adv., Mr. Varun Mishra, AOR
For Respondent(s):
Mr. Shaurya Sahay, AOR, Mr. Shobhit Dwivedi, Adv.
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Quashing of complaint – Basic ingredients – Requirement of -- Submission that complaint does not contain date of presentation of cheque before the bank, the date of return of the cheque as unpaid from the bank, the date of issuing mandatory notice within 30 days and the date of service of such notice on the drawee – Held, complaint cannot proceed u/s 138 of the N.I. Act without the basic ingredients being mentioned therein – Proceedings of Complaint case quashed.
(Para 2, 5, 6)
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. On 22.01.2024, the following order was passed :
“The submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as presented does not contain the basic ingredients like the date of presentation of cheque before the bank, the date of return of the cheque as unpaid from the bank, the date of issuing mandatory notice within 30 days and the date of service of such notice on the drawee, as such the complaint is incomplete and liable to be dismissed at the threshold. Annexure P2 is the copy of the complaint and Annexure P3 is the affidavit of evidence of the complainant filed along with the complaint. Upon perusal of these two documents we find that they do not contain the said relevant dated.
Issue notice, returnable within six weeks.
In the meantime, further proceedings before the Trial Court shall remain stayed.”
3. As per office report dated 06.03.2024, notices have been served on both the respondents. Respondent No.1 – State of Uttar Pradesh is represented through the counsel, whereas no one has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no.2, despite service of notice.
4. It appears that respondent no.2 is not interested in pursuing this matter any further as he may be aware of the fate of the complaint.
5. In that view of the matter treating the facts recorded in the order dated 22.01.2024 to be correct as the same has not been rebutted and they are also borne out of record filed along with this appeal, in our considered view, the complaint cannot proceed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 without the basic ingredients being mentioned therein.
6. Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and quash the proceedings of Complaint Case No.355 of 2022.
7. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the court concerned.
Order accordingly.
********