2018 (6) TMI 816 - HC - Indian Laws

Validity of statutory demand notice dated 10.06.2016 - Held that - In this case, in the statutory notice dated 10.06.2016, the complainant has clearly given the description of the two cheques for ₹ 5 lakhs each. Of course, the complainant has added another cheque for ₹ 2 lakhs and has totally demanded ₹ 12 lakhs from the accused. However, in the complaint and in the sworn statement, the complainant has rested his case only on the two cheques for ₹ 5 lakhs each and has not prosecuted the accused for the dishonour of the third cheque for ₹ 2 lakhs - one cannot say that the statutory notice dated 10.06.2016 is bereft of particulars for the accused to understand the nature of the allegations levelled against him. Hence, the statutory notice at hand cannot be said to be not in consonance with the requirements of the statute. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the legality and sustainability of Criminal Original Petition seeking to quash C.C. No.1890 of 2016 on the file of IV Fast Track Court, George Town, Chennai.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought to quash C.C. No.1890 of 2016, alleging it to be illegal and unsustainable. The complainant claimed that the accused borrowed ?10 lakhs for business needs and issued two cheques, both of which were returned due to insufficient funds. A legal notice demanding payment was sent, but the accused did not respond. The complainant then initiated prosecution, leading to the current challenge. The accused's counsel argued that discrepancies in the complainant's statements rendered the statutory notice invalid, citing legal precedent. The court examined the contentions and relevant legal principles.

The accused's counsel highlighted inconsistencies in the complainant's communications and the statutory notice, questioning the validity of the notice based on the discrepancy in the amount claimed. Referring to a Supreme Court ruling, it was argued that a notice must demand the exact cheque amount, without additional claims, to be legally valid. The court noted the complainant's description of three cheques in the notice but prosecution based on only two cheques in the complaint, leading to a discussion on the notice's conformity with legal requirements.

Citing the objective of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court emphasized the notice's purpose to notify the accused of a dishonored cheque and provide an opportunity for payment before prosecution. Despite the complainant's demand for ?12 lakhs in the notice, the court found the notice sufficiently detailed regarding the two ?5 lakh cheques. The argument that issuing cheques on the same day as borrowing was imprudent was deemed a matter for trial, requiring cross-examination for clarification. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, allowing the accused to raise points during trial and emphasizing that the observations made were limited to the quash application, not influencing the trial court's proceedings.