2020 (1) TMI 388 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - time limitation - HELD THAT - The documents on record, which show that the cheque was presented in the Bank, which was dishonoured and then the stipulated time, as required under law on 22.12.2014 with the endorsement Insufficient funds thereafter, notice was issued to the respondent within two days through Bank, which is Ex.CW1/D, in the learned Court below, on the address of the respondent, which is the same address and now in the present petition, endorsement on the same was unclaimed and before that intimation was left by the addressee by the postal authority. In these circumstances, the presumption is that it was received by the respondent and the same was returned to the addressee by the Post Office on 24.12.2014 and it could have been taken three days to reach back to the sender. In the instant case, the presumption has to be taken that it is received by the addressee, when it was on the known address, which is the same address in the present petition and after thirty days, the time comes 24th January, 2015 i.e. the presumption period and fifteen days thereafter, 8th January, 2015, i.e. the time to make the payment and thereafter, the complaint was required to be filed within one month by 5th March, 2015, but the complaint was filed in the month of February, 2015, which is within limitation. It is clear that the complaint was filed within time and the learned Court at Rampur Bushehar, has got territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the case. Notice was duly served upon the respondent, as it was the same address, of which, the present petition is filed. In these circumstances, jurisdiction of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is not required to be exercised and complaint cannot be quashed. The present petition sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Timeliness of the complaint.
3. Proper service of notice.
4. Jurisdiction of the court.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of the Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kinnaur Camp at Rampur, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint was filed by the complainant, an agriculturist, against the respondent, who is engaged in the business of selling and purchasing fruits and vegetables. The respondent had issued a cheque for ?5,00,000/- to the complainant, which was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The respondent failed to pay the amount despite receiving a legal notice, leading to the filing of the complaint.

2. Timeliness of the Complaint:
The petitioner argued that the complaint was time-barred. However, the court found that the cheque was presented and dishonored on 22.12.2014, and a notice was issued on 24.12.2014. The presumption is that the notice was received by the respondent, and the complaint was filed within the statutory period. The court concluded that the complaint was filed within the limitation period, as it was presented in February 2015, well before the deadline of 5th March 2015.

3. Proper Service of Notice:
The petitioner contended that the notice was not duly served. The court examined the documents and found that the notice was sent to the correct address, which is the same address mentioned in the present petition. The notice was returned unclaimed with a note from the postal authorities. The court relied on the presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act that the notice was deemed to be served. Therefore, the court held that the notice was properly served on the respondent.

4. Jurisdiction of the Court:
The petitioner argued that the court at Rampur Bushehar had no jurisdiction to try the case, citing judgments including Bridgestone India Private Limited vs. Inderpal Singh. The respondent countered that the case could be filed where the cheque was presented for collection. The court referred to the amendment by Notification No.7 of 2015, which allows the case to be filed where the cheque is presented. The court concluded that the learned Court at Rampur Bushehar had the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the case.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, holding that the complaint was filed within the limitation period, the notice was duly served, and the court at Rampur Bushehar had jurisdiction. The observations made were not to be construed as an opinion on the merits of the main case, which would be adjudicated independently by the learned Court below. The parties were directed to appear before the learned Court on 20th January 2020.