NAHE E D ARA MOONIS,J. - (1.) HEARD , the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
(2.) THE instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the complaint case no. 1121 of 2008, Mahesh Singh Vs. Dillep Sharma, under Section 138 N. I. Act, P.S. Jagdishpura, District Agra, pending before the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate(VI), Agra, whereby the cognizance has been taken against the applicant by order dated 18.11.2008. The opposite party no.2 had filed a complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act on the ground that the applicant had given him a cheque of Rs.49,000/-bearing cheque no.922211 dated 20.11.2007. When the said cheque was pre sented before the bank it was dishonoured on account of insufficient of funds. Thereafter the complainant had given a notice to the applicant with regard to the payment of cheque, who had assured that the payment will be made. Thereafter the cheque was deposited on 27.2.2008 and again it was dishonoured on 3.4.2008 with the endorsement of bank on account of insufficient of funds. The opposite party no.2 had given a legal notice on 22.4.2008 but the applicant has failed to reply, therefore the opposite party filed a complaint on 21.5.2002. The statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The complainant in support of evidence filed the cheque and memo with the endorsement of the bank. The court below had taken the notice of the state ment of complainant and the evidence adduced by him and on the basis of which prima facie arrived at the conclusion that the applicant has committed an offence under Section 138 N. I. Act and thereafter issued summons to appear before the court on 17.12.2008.
(3.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the complaint does not speak about the service of notice upon the applicant with re gard to the dishonour of cheque. There is no provision in the Negotiable Instrument Act with regard to the issuance of notice twice and as such the summoning order passed against the applicant suffers from manifest error of law.;