Decided on April 20,2007

Pramod Vijay Khullar Respondents


A.K.SIKRI, J. - (1.) RAGHU Vias, who is the respondent in this petition, has filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the petitioner herein. It is alleged in the complaint that the cheques given by the petitioner to the respondent has been dishonoured and even when the payment was not made after the notice of demand was served upon the petitioner, the complaint was filed. It is not necessary to go into the reasons which led to the petitioner issuing the cheque and the dishonour of the said cheque. What is to be stated is that summoning order has been passed and this has been challenged by the petitioner, who is accused in the said proceedings, on a very short ground, namely, the notice of demand which was served upon the petitioner by the respondent before filing the complaint is not in accordance with law.
(2.) THE only thing which is to be noted in this behalf is that, according to the respondent, as per the averments made in the complaint by him, the petitioner had approached the respondent and asked for some loan amount pursuant whereto the respondent had advanced to the petitioner, being a good friend, a sum of Rs.35,000/-. With the intention to pay this amount, two cheques in the sum of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively were given by the petitioner to the complainant with an assurance that the balance amount of Rs.20,000/- shall also be paid before 8.10.2003. The two cheques on presentation were dishonoured. The notice, which was sent by the respondent to the petitioner on dishonour of these cheques, stated about the fact that the cheques had been bounced back. However, in this notice, the demand which was made was to call upon the petitioner to make payment of Rs.30,000/- of the loan amount with interest @ 24% per annum. The demand is in the following language: - I, therefore, through this legal notice call upon you to make a payment of Rs.30,000/- of loan amount with interest @ 24% p.a. Rs.15,000/- towards mental harassment within 15 days from the receipt of this notice, failing which I have full instructions from my client to prosecute against you in civil as well criminal courts of law at your costs, risks and consequences, please note. 3. The neat submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of which he is seeking quashing of the summoning order, is that when the two cheques were for a total sum of Rs.15,000/-, making a demand in the sum of Rs.30,000/- was not proper inasmuch as demand has to be in terms of the dishonoured cheques. Therefore, such a demand is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 138 of the Act and the complaint filed on the basis of such demand is not a valid demand.
(3.) This submission of the petitioner's counsel has force as it is backed by the judgment of the Supreme Court. In the case of K.R. Indira v. Dr. G. Adinarayana, 2003 (3) JCC (NI) 273, the Supreme Court held that where the demand was made not of the cheque amounts but the loan amount as though it was a demand for the loan amount and not demand for the payment of the cheque amount, the notice did not meet the requirement of Section 138 of the Act. In Pramod Vijay Khullar v. State and Anr., 2005 (1) JCC (NI) 97, wherein this Court, relying upon the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, held that when the notice relates to the amount due and not for the cheque amount that notice would not give rise to a cause of action for filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Act.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.