IN THE HIGH COUT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 21 of 2006 Shyam Lal S/o Bhullan … Petitioner Versus Rajendra Prasad Agarwal and another … Respondents Mr. M.K. Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. Heard Mr. M.K. Goyal, the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. None for the respondent No. 1 inspite of service. Mr. Nandan Arya, A.G.A. for the State/respondent No.2. This petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 28/08/2004 passed by the learned 1st Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.)/J.M. Haridwar in Complaint Case No.729 of 2004, Rajendra Prasad Vs. Shyam Lal u/s 138 of the N.I.Act. The main ground of challenge in the present petition is that the date of the service of notice of demand on the petitioner has not been mentioned in the complaint filed by the respondent No.2 and it was not possible to ascertain when the cause of action to file the complaint arose and in such circumstances the cognizance order passed by the learned Magistrate is bad. The learned A.G.A. refuted the contention. There is no averment in the petition that the petitioner did not receive any notice of the demand of the amount as claimed. The petitioner can adduce the evidence of service of notice upon the petitioner at the time of the trial. Merely not mentioning the date in the notice is not sufficient in the complaint and it cannot be a ground to quash the complaint, The complaint would adduce the evidence before the trial court and the trial court will ascertain after appreciation of the evidence whether the notice was served upon the petitioner or not. It relates to a matter of evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner. contended that the notice did not contain the real amount alleged in the cheque. The complainant has demanded Rs. 40,000/- taken as debt by the petitioner be returned to him within the stipulated period. As I have stated earlier that on the one hand the petitioner is denying the service of notice and on the other hand he is admitting the service of the notice by alleging that he has demanded Rs. 40,000/- by way of demand. The cognizance order bears the cheque bearing No.020858 for Rs. 40,000/-. Thus it is clear that the amount of the cheque was Rs. 40,000. The complainant has demanded Rs.40,000/- by way of notice, as such, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not bear any force. No other point was raised before me. In view of the above, the petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) 20.10.2008 Shiv