Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) The instant Misc. Petition has been filed by the petitioner tinder Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the order dated 24.10.2005 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh in Criminal Complaint No. 821/2005 whereby the cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offence tinder Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The challenge has been made to the cognizance order and the proceedings of the complaint on the ground that the complaint in this case is time barred as having been filed on the basis of a second notice.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the certified copy of the complaint as per which, on the first bouncing of the cheque, on 9.2.2005, the complainant initially issued a registered notice to the petitioner on 15.2.2005. Admittedly, the petitioner did apt make the payment of the cheque despite the receipt of the said notice. Thereafter, the cheque was again presented to the bank by the complainant on 4.4.2005 and the same was again bounced and a second notice was given on 7.4.2005. The complaint in this case has been filed pursuant to the second notice sent by the complainant to the accused-petitioner. Learned counsel relying on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prem Chand Vijay Kumar v. Yahshpal Singh & Anr., reported in 2005 Cr.L.R. (SC) 476 submits that the cause of action arose from the issuance of the first notice. He submits that complaint in this case has been filed after the issuance of the second notice and as such the same is time barred.
(3.) Notice of the petition was issued to the respondent complainant but nobody has put in appearance, despite service.;