IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20.03.2008 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR Crl.O.P.No.27287 of 2006 and M.P.No.1 & 2 of 2006 Venkatesh .. Petitioner Vs. K.Surendran .. Respondent The Criminal Original Petition is filed Under Section 482 of CrPC to call for the records of complaint in C.C.No.4129 of 2006 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sukumaran For Respondents : Mr.V.Muralidaran O R D E R This court heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Respondent and perused the materials available on record. 2. The criminal case instituted on private complaint for an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner herein is sought to be quashed by invoking the inherent power of the High Court under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. The complaint preferred by the respondent herein on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, was taken on file as C.C.No.4129 of2006. The complaint was based on the dishonour of a cheque dated 30.01.2006, allegedly issued by the petitioner herein in favour of the respondent herein. 3. The only ground on which the complaint is attacked in this petition is that the statutory notice of demand contemplated under section 138 proviso (b) does not comply with the requirements of the statute. According to the petitioner, the statutory notice issued on 06.02.2006 does not specify the amount for which the cheque was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ issued or the amount for which the demand was made. This Court, after going through the copy of the notice annexed in the type set of papers, is able to find that the said particulars are conspicuously absent in the above said Notice. When a similar question arose before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suman Sethi Vs. Ajay K.Churiwal and another reported in 2000(2) SCC 380, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that failure to make a demand for payment of the exact amount covered by the cheque will make the notice invalid. The relevant observation is found in paragraph 8 of the said judgement, which is reproduced here under. "8. It is a well-settled principle of law that the notice has to be read as a whole. In the notice, demand has to be made for the "said amount" i.e. the cheque amount. If no such demand is made the notice no doubt would fall short of its legal requirement. Where in addition to the "said amount" there is also a claim by way of interest, cost etc., whether the notice is bad would depend on the language of the notice. If in a notice, while giving the break-up of the claim of the cheque amount, interest, damages etc., are separately specified, other such claims for interest, cost etc., would be superfluous and these additional claims would be severable and will not invalidate the notice. If, however, in the notice an omnibus demand is made without specifying what was due under the dishonoured cheque, the notice might well fail to meet the legal requirement and may be regarded as bad." 4. The above said observation itself is enough to hold that the notice issued by the Respondent herein demanding payment of the amount covered by the cheque does not comply with the statutory requirements found in Section 138 Proviso (b). On the short point alone this court is satisfied that the complaint cannot be maintained and the same has got to be quashed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.4129 of 2006 is quashed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar asr https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To The IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai +1 cc To Mr.K.Sukumaran, Advocate, SR.15966 Crl.O.P.No.27287 of 2006 and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2006 rs [co] gkg/4.4 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/