THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PEITITON No.3922 of 2007 ORDER: - This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.625 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tanuku, registered for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “the Act”) against the petitioner-accused for dishonour of the cheque bearing No.859098, dated 20-07-2006. Even the complaint allegations and the notice issued by the first respondent-complainant, dated 23-10-2006, disclose that two cheques bearing Nos.859098 and 859099, dated 20-07-2006 for Rs.10,000/- each, issued by the petitioner in favour of the complainant, drawn on the State Bank of India, Guntur Branch, were presented on 21-07-2006 in the complainant’s account in the Central Bank of India, Tanuku. The said two cheques were dishonoured with an endorsement “not drawn on us” and a memo to that effect was also issued to the complainant by the Central Bank of India, Tanuku on 24-07-2006. Hence, the complainant issued a notice, dated 14- 08-2006, to the petitioner to pay the amount covered by the said two cheques within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice, for which, the petitioner gave reply on 29-08-2006. Thereafter, the complainant presented both the cheques for collection on 21-09-2006, but one cheque bearing No.859098 for Rs.10,000/- was not honoured and the same was stated in the notice, dated 23-10-2006. Hence, the complaint. It is now fairly well settled that once the notice reached the drawer of the cheque the period of 15 days (within which he has to make the payment) has started running and on the expiry of that period the offence is completed unless the amount has been paid in the meanwhile. If no complaint is filed within one month therefrom, the payee would stand forbidden from launching a prosecution thereafter, due to the clear interdict contained in Section 142 of the Act, as explained by the Supreme Court in SIL IMPORT, USA Vs. EXIM AIDES SILK EXPORTERS, BANGALORE. In view of the same, the present complaint lodged on the notice dated 23-10-2006, cannot be proceeded contrary to the provisions of the Act and, therefore, the proceedings pending against the petitioner in C.C.No.625 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tanuku, are hereby quashed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J Date:27-08-2010 Prv