Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.7717 of 2009 ====================================================== Mukesh Anand, son of Sri Narendra Kumar Verma resident of village Raghunathpur P.S. Motihari Mufassil, Distt. East Champaran at present residing at G-2/7, J.V.S.L. Township, Vidya Nagar, Torana Gallu, Distt. Bellari, State Karnataka. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Ajay Ranjan @ Ajit Kumar Verma, son of Sri Shailendra Kumar Verma, resident of Flat No. 202 “B” Block, Sangeeta Palace, Sheopuri, P.S. S.K. Puri, Patna – 1. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. V. Narayan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Harendra Kr. Sinha, Adv. Mr. Chandra Shekhar Jha, Adv. For the Opposite Party No. 2 : Mr. Dineshwar Mishra, Adv. Mr. Surendra Mishra, Adv. For the State : Md. Mustaque Alam, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ORAL ORDER 4. 17-04-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Opposite party No. 2 and the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 6.5.2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, in Complaint Case No. 856 (C) of 2004 by which he has taken cognizance under [STATUTE] and Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The case of the Complainant is that he as an employee of M/s. K.D. Liquor and Fertilizer Pvt. Ltd. took up the job of Sales Manager of the Establishment of the accused persons Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7717 of 2009 (4) dt.17-04-2012 2 / 4 2 and invested huge amount of money in the business proposition. In course of business transaction, the accused persons owed certain amount of money to the Complainant. When the Complainant insisted for his payments, the accused No. 1 issued two Cheques on 2.3.2004 and 5.3.2004 for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each. The Complainant allegedly presented the Cheque before the Central Bank of India, on 11.3.2004, but the same was dishonored and such notice was given to the Complainant on 15.3.2004 by the Bank. When the Complainant approached the accused persons once again on account of this development, the accused No. 1 issued three Cheques dated 8.3.2004, 10.3.2004 and 12.3.2004 for a sum of Rs. 48,000/-, 43,000/- and 33,000/- respectively. These Cheques were also presented to the Complainant’s Bank on 27.3.2004 but they were dishonoured on account of insufficiency of fund on 29.3.2004. The Complainant thereafter gave two registered legal notices to the accused No. 1 on 29.3.2004 and 3.4.2004 for his lawful dues of Rs. 2,24,000/- but despite receipt of notice, the accused persons failed to pay the same and hence the present Complaint. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the legal notice given to the petitioner gave only three days time to him to repay which was against the mandate of Section Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7717 of 2009 (4) dt.17-04-2012 3 / 4 3 138 proviso (c) of Negotiable Instrument Act. The further submission is that the Complaint was hurriedly filed without giving him 15 days notice as required under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act in respect to the subsequent Cheques given on 8.3.2004, 10.3.2004 and 12.3.2004 since the legal notice was issued only on 3.4.2004 whereas the present Complaint was filed on 15.4.2004 before expiry of the mandatory 15 days period. The learned counsel for the Complainant submits that the legal notice may have given only three days for repaying money to the Complainant but he had waited for 15 days with respect to the Cheques dated 2.3.2004 and 5.3.2004. He submits that to avoid multiplicity of proceedings the present Complaint was filed even with respect to the subsequent Cheques dated 8.3.2004, 10.3.2004 and 12.3.2004. Having heard the rival pleadings, I am of the view that the argument of the counsel for the petitioner is completely misplaced with regard to the requirement of 15 days in the legal notice. Section 138(c) does not mandate that the legal notice should contain 15 days period but only speaks of a cause of action having arisen after the Drawer fails to make payment to the Holder within 15 days of the receipt of such notice. The argument therefore with regard to the Cheques dated 2.3.2004 and 5.3.2004 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7717 of 2009 (4) dt.17-04-2012 4 / 4 4 is fit to be rejected. It is notable that since the petitioner raised a technical objection with regard to inadequate notice for refund of the money, this Court gave him an option of doing so since by now he has adequate notice but he failed to respond favourably. However, this Court holds that the petitioner is correct in his submission with regard to the subsequent Cheques but it would not nullify the order of cognizance. This fact may be considered by the Court below at the stage of framing of charge. With the aforesaid observations, the application is dismissed. S.Ali (Anjana Prakash, J.)

Applicable IPC Section: 420

Statute Text:
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Cheating and there by dishonestly inducing delivery of property, or the making, alteration or destruction of a valuable security. Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.