- (1.) HEARD Sri Gaurav Kakkar learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
(2.) THIS application under Section 482 has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Complaint Case no. 231 of 2013 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate IInd, Allahabad.
(3.) THE contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the complaint was filed on 14.02.2013. Neither in the complaint nor in the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the date of service of notice required to be served upon the drawer of the cheque, has been specifically stated. He further submits that fifteen days time is available to the drawer from the date of service of the notice contemplated in sub -section (b) of Section 138 to make the payment under the bounced cheque and before the expiry of this period of fifteen days, from the receipt of notice, the proceedings cannot be initiated. It is therefore the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that this date must clearly be specified in the complaint as also in the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. In light of the submissions made, it would be relevant to note certain dates that have been mentioned in the complaint itself. The specific case in the complaint is that two cheques, Cheque no. 919703 dated 28.11.2012 and Cheque no. 91974 dated 12.12.2012, both drawn on the Bank of Maharashtra for a sum of Rs. Three Lakhs each were issued by the applicant. On these cheques being presented, the complainant was informed on 19.12.2012 that the cheques would not be encashed as the drawer had issued instructions to stop payment of the cheques. It is therefore clear that the date on which the cheques bounced was 19.12.2012. It has been stated that a notice was sent to the applicant on 02.01.2013 by registered post. The postal receipt in this regard is available on record. The complaint itself was filed on 14.02.2013 about 43 days after the dispatch of the registered notice. The question therefore, which requires consideration is as to whether the complaint would be entertained on the basis of the dates that have been noticed herein above.;