Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 1997 (1) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1997 (1) TMI 566 - HC - Indian Laws

Issues:
1. Quashing of proceedings under Section 482, Cr.P.C.
2. Compliance with Section 138(b) and Section 138(c) of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. Prematurity of the complaint filed by the respondent.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 13178/90 based on a complaint alleging dishonor of a cheque. The respondent issued a legal notice to the petitioner, which was returned unserved with an endorsement 'addressee refused'. The petitioner contended that the respondent did not give the mandatory 15 days' time as required under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The respondent filed the complaint on 27-9-1989 after issuing the notice on 13-9-1989, which the petitioner argued did not fulfill the 15 days' notice requirement under Section 138(c) of the Act.

The Court noted that while the respondent had indeed sent the notice to the petitioner, the complaint was filed prematurely without giving the requisite 15 clear days' notice. The Court referred to Section 142 of the Act, which mandates that the cause of action arises only after the expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. In this case, the complaint was filed before the completion of the mandatory notice period, rendering it premature and not maintainable under the Act.

The Court observed that the petitioner had received the notice back on 21-9-1989, and even if the petitioner refused the notice on 20-9-1989, the complaint should have been filed after the expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The Court emphasized that the date of issuance of the notice cannot be considered for calculating the notice period. Consequently, the Court held that the complaint was premature, and the Magistrate had erred in directing the issuance of summons without considering this crucial fact.

Ultimately, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings in C.C. No. 13178/90. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to the statutory requirements under the Negotiable Instruments Act, particularly concerning the timeline for issuing notices and filing complaints in cases of dishonor of cheques.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates