IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 869 of 2007 (under Section 482 Cr.P.C) Dinesh Chand Goyal. ……….Applicant. Versus State of Uttarakhand and another. ....…. Respondents Present : Sri R.K. S. Verma, Advocate for the Applicant. Sri P.S. Bohara, Brief Holder for the State. Sri Nagesh Agarwal, Advocate for the respondent no. 2. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. By way of this petition, a prayer has been made to quash the proceedings of criminal complaint case no. 2835 of 2007 (Kishan Kumar Agarwal Vs. Dinesh Chand) and the order of cognizance dated 11.07.2007 passed therein. In the said complaint, Dinesh Chand Goyal (petitioner) was asked to stand trial for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (herein after called as ‘Act’). 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it appears that in order to discharge the pecuniary liability Dinesh Chand Goyal issued a cheque, which he drew from his banker Punjab National Bank, Kanvali Road, Dehradun. The said cheque was of dated 22.04.2007 for the amount of Rs. 2,24,702/-. The said cheque was presented by respondent no. 2 K.K. Agarwal on the same day in his bank for collection and the same was returned on 15.05.2007 with the endorsement of the bank as ‘exceed arrangement’. So notice was sent by K.K. Agarwal as envisaged under Section 138 of the Act on dated 23.05.2007 asking him to make payment but in vain. Consequently, K.K. Agarwal filed the said complaint against 2 Dinesh Chand Goyal on dated 19.06.2007 whereupon impugned order of cognizance was passed. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that notices were never received by him because these were sent on wrong addresses. Two notices were sent on 23.05.2007 asking him to make payment of that cheque. One notice was sent to Dinesh Goyal at the address 91/1, Kanvali Road, Dehradun and another notice was sent to him on the address 90, Kanvali Road, Dehradun. It has been argued that the name of the petitioner is virtually “Dinesh Chand Goyal” and not “Dinesh Goyal” and he resides at 90/1 Kanvali Road, Dehradun. 4. This contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is quite baseless and deserves to be rejected with lock, stock and barrel because Kanvali Road, Dehradun is not an area of metropolitan city as to make postman unable to deliver the post, sent to petitioner, notwithstanding, the slight variation in the name or address, as stated above. Fortiori, his father name D.L. Goyal was also mentioned in the notice and the petitioner, when being summoned by the court then he received the summon sent to him, writing his name as “Dinesh Goyal”, resident of 90 Kanvali Road, Dehradun or 91/1, Kanvali Road, Dehradun. 5. In this regard, law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of C.C. Alavi Haji Vs. Palapetty Muhammed and another reported in 2007 (6) SCC 555 reads as under: “Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – S. 138 provisos (b) and (c) - Course open to drawer where he claims not to have received the notice sent by post but received copy of the complaint with the summons – Held, he can within 3 15 days of the receipt of the summons make payment of the cheque amount and on that basis submit to the court that the complaint be rejected – He then cannot contend that there was no proper service of notice.” 6. In view of the above, the petition is bereft of merits and deserves to be dismissed. The petition is accordingly dismissed. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 11.11.2011 SKS