THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4722 of 2011 Date: 20.06.2011 Between: M/s. Sainath Estates Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its M.D. K.Prem Sagar Rao and another …..Petitioners And The State of A.P., through Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another …..Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4722 OF 2011 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Petitioners are accused No.1 and 2 in C.C.No.1063 of 2009 on the file of the Court of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. They filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) for quashing of the proceedings in the said criminal case. The offence alleged in the said criminal case is one punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short the Act). Para 8 of the complaint is relevant to deal with the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and it reads as follows: “That the complainant herein, aggrieved by the dishonour of the cheque issued to him, given by the accused, towards legally recoverable debt, caused a lawyers notice dated 12-01-2009, to be issued to the accused herein, asking the accused to pay the sum of Rs.13,63,000/-, (Rupees thirteen lakhs sixty three thousands only) within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. That the accused herein, are in receipt of the said notice, but failed to give any reply nor paid the demanded amount.” 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in the complaint, the date on which the statutory notice was served is not mentioned and therefore, no cause of action can be said to have arisen for the complainant and consequently the case should be quashed. In support of his contention, he also relied upon a decision of Apex Court given in SHAKTI TRAVEL & TOURS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER[1]. This judgment is a very short judgment and the proposition laid down in the said case is that in a complaint filed for the offence under Section 138 of the Act, the complainant should mention that the statutory notice required to be given under Section 138 of the Act has been served on the accused. Basing on this decision, the learned counsel for the petitioners says that the date on which the statutory notice been served has not been mentioned in the complaint and that is an essential requirement and therefore, the complaint is liable to be quashed. There is no force in his contention. 4. It may be noted that I have already extracted para 8 of the complaint and the language in it shows that both the accused received statutory notice, but failed to pay the amount. Thus, the averments made in para 8 would show that the complainant took care to mention that the statutory notice has been served. In the case referred to supra what is stated is that only an averment should be there indicating the statutory notice has been served and that is complied. The said decision cannot be understood to hold that the date of service of notice should also be mentioned. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners says that the accused have not received the statutory notice at all. That is however a question which has to be decided on evidence. Hence, nothing can be said about that now. 6. In the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that there are no grounds to interfere in this matter and it is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. It shall be open for the petitioners to raise all their pleas before the trial Court. The Court below may consider all the pleas of the petitioners without being in any manner influenced by this order. ___________________________ JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR 20th June, 2011 Tjmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4720 of 2011 DATE: 20.06.2011 [1] (2002) 9 Supreme Court Cases 415