AJEET SEEDS LTD Vs. K. GOPALA KRISHNAIAH
LAWS(SC)-2014-7-70
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on
July 16,2014
AJEET SEEDS LTD.
Appellant
VERSUS
K. Gopala Krishnaiah
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
JAGDISH SINGH VS. NATTHU SINGH [REFERRED TO]STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. HIRALAL [REFERRED TO]
K BHASKARAN VS. SANKARAN VAIDHYAN BALAN [REFERRED TO]
SHAKTI TRAVEL AND TOURS VS. STATE OF BIHAR [OVERRULED]
WASIM AHMED SAEED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
D VINOD SHIVAPPA VS. NANDA BELLIAPPA [REFERRED TO]
C C ALAVI HAJI VS. PALAPETTY MUHAMMED [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
RANJEET CHAUHAN VS. RAVINDER SINGH THAKUR [LAWS(HPH)-2020-1-86] [REFERRED TO]M/S. SRI CHAKRA COMPACTORS VS. D. VIJAYA KUMAR [LAWS(MAD)-2018-11-37] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH KALURAM THORAT VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2024-4-112] [REFERRED TO]
TOP FILLING POINT PROPRIETOR RAKESH AGRAWAL VS. STATE OF U.P [LAWS(ALL)-2023-10-57] [REFERRED TO]
PRASHANT CHAUDHARY VS. RITESH KUMAR SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2023-10-66] [REFERRED TO]
SHWETA RAJ VS. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY [LAWS(DLH)-2017-10-120] [REFERRED TO]
DHIRAJ GUPTA VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-12-174] [REFERRED TO]
KAISAR JAHAN VS. PASHUPATI COLONIZER PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(ALL)-2022-5-48] [REFERRED TO]
VEDPAL SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P [LAWS(ALL)-2023-5-99] [REFERRED TO]
M.K. ABDUL HAMEED VS. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS [LAWS(KER)-2020-2-217] [REFERRED TO]
REENA SAJI VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2020-2-233] [REFERRED TO]
RAM BABU VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-403] [REFERRED TO]
MOHINI VERMA VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-9-58] [REFERRED TO]
KISHORE LAL CHUGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-1-710] [REFERRED TO]
BIMLA DEVI VS. HARISH RANA [LAWS(HPH)-2017-6-29] [REFERRED TO]
GANESH BABU GUPTA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-6-95] [REFERRED TO]
PRATIK JAIN & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U P & ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2017-11-363] [REFERRED TO]
ARANJAY JAIN VS. STATE OF U P & ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2017-1-403] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD TYAGI VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-4-187] [REFERRED TO]
SULTAN SINGH VS. TEJ PARTAP [LAWS(P&H)-2021-9-95] [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHAND VS. SUNITA ABROL [LAWS(HPH)-2016-11-85] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2023-3-141] [REFERRED TO]
SUJATHA RAMANATHAN VS. RAMYA [LAWS(MAD)-2017-8-182] [REFERRED TO]
R. L. VARMA VS. P. C. SHARMA [LAWS(DLH)-2019-7-57] [REFERRED TO]
VIVEK JAISWAL VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-3-191] [REFERRED TO]
SOHAN LAL VINOD KUMAR VS. RAJ KUMAR [LAWS(HPH)-2022-3-85] [REFERRED TO]
BHIM SINGH VS. TIKMI DEVI [LAWS(HPH)-2022-3-59] [REFERRED TO]
SATYA RANJAN SAHA VS. BIPLAB DEBNATH [LAWS(TRIP)-2021-10-4] [REFERRED TO]
YOGESH POOJARY VS. K SHANKARA BHAT [LAWS(KAR)-2018-11-167] [REFERRED TO]
UMAR KHALID VS. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY [LAWS(DLH)-2017-10-81] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA KUMAR GUPTA VS. MANOJ KUMAR SAHU [LAWS(ALL)-2022-8-4] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. C.J. SOLANKI [LAWS(BOM)-2022-4-266] [REFERRED TO]
ARUP CHATTERJEE VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2022-7-95] [REFERRED TO]
KISHORE SHARMA VS. SACHIN DUBEY [LAWS(SC)-2019-9-139] [REFERRED TO]
ABHISHEK KUMAR VS. STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2016-5-224] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-8-33] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR GOEL VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2021-6-32] [REFERRED TO]
MINAKSHI VS. STATE OF U.P [LAWS(ALL)-2023-5-98] [REFERRED TO]
PEARSON INDIA EDUCATION SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. TINY TOTS SCHOOL [LAWS(KAR)-2019-10-159] [RERERRED TO]
SULTAN ALAM VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-6-81] [REFERRED TO]
SHRIRAM BALAJI VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-9-213] [REFERRED TO]
PRIYANKA KUMARI VS. SHAILENDRA KUMAR [LAWS(SC)-2023-10-108] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The appellant is the complainant. He has challenged the judgment and order dated 21/03/2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal Writ Petition No.1131 of 2012 whereby the High Court has quashed the complaint filed by him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the NI Act') being SCC No. 4118 of 2007 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad.
(3.)For the purpose of disposal of this appeal, it is not necessary to narrate all the facts of the case. Suffice it to say that the complaint was filed alleging that the cheque issued by the respondent-accused for repayment of a legally recoverable debt bounced. On 17/6/2011 learned Magistrate issued process. The respondent-accused filed a criminal revision application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad mainly on the assertion that the demand notice was not served on him. The said criminal revision application was rejected. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent-accused filed criminal writ petition in the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Cr.P.C.'). The High Court quashed the complaint on a short ground that on reading verification of the complaint dated 17/6/2011, it is explicit that there are no recitals to demonstrate that the notice issued under Section 138 of the NI Act by the complainant was served upon the respondent-accused on any specific date. The High Court observed that there is no proof that either the notice was served or it was returned unserved/unclaimed and that that there is no averment in the complaint about the same. The High Court concluded that, therefore, there could not be a cause of action to prosecute the accused under Section 138 of the NI Act. For coming to this conclusion, the High Court relied on the order of this Court in Shakti Travel & Tours v. State of Bihar & Anr, 2002 9 SCC 415. The extract on which the High Court relied upon could be quoted :
"2. The accused who is the appellant, assails the order of the High Court refusing to quash the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The only ground on which the learned counsel for the appellant prays for quashing of the complaint is that on the assertions made in paragraph 8 of the complaint, it must be held that notice has not been served and, therefore, an application under Section 138 could not have been maintained. Undoubtedly, the accused has a right to pay the money within 15 days from the date of the service of notice and only when it fails to pay, is it open for the complainant to file a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. That being the position and in the complaint itself having not been mentioned that the notice has been served, on the assertions made in para 8, the complainant itself is not maintainable. We accordingly quash the complaint."
(2.)The appellant is the complainant. He has challenged the judgment and order dated 21/03/2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal Writ Petition No.1131 of 2012 whereby the High Court has quashed the complaint filed by him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the NI Act') being SCC No. 4118 of 2007 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad.
(3.)For the purpose of disposal of this appeal, it is not necessary to narrate all the facts of the case. Suffice it to say that the complaint was filed alleging that the cheque issued by the respondent-accused for repayment of a legally recoverable debt bounced. On 17/6/2011 learned Magistrate issued process. The respondent-accused filed a criminal revision application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad mainly on the assertion that the demand notice was not served on him. The said criminal revision application was rejected. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent-accused filed criminal writ petition in the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Cr.P.C.'). The High Court quashed the complaint on a short ground that on reading verification of the complaint dated 17/6/2011, it is explicit that there are no recitals to demonstrate that the notice issued under Section 138 of the NI Act by the complainant was served upon the respondent-accused on any specific date. The High Court observed that there is no proof that either the notice was served or it was returned unserved/unclaimed and that that there is no averment in the complaint about the same. The High Court concluded that, therefore, there could not be a cause of action to prosecute the accused under Section 138 of the NI Act. For coming to this conclusion, the High Court relied on the order of this Court in Shakti Travel & Tours v. State of Bihar & Anr, 2002 9 SCC 415. The extract on which the High Court relied upon could be quoted :
"2. The accused who is the appellant, assails the order of the High Court refusing to quash the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The only ground on which the learned counsel for the appellant prays for quashing of the complaint is that on the assertions made in paragraph 8 of the complaint, it must be held that notice has not been served and, therefore, an application under Section 138 could not have been maintained. Undoubtedly, the accused has a right to pay the money within 15 days from the date of the service of notice and only when it fails to pay, is it open for the complainant to file a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. That being the position and in the complaint itself having not been mentioned that the notice has been served, on the assertions made in para 8, the complainant itself is not maintainable. We accordingly quash the complaint."
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.