1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Miscellaneous Application(C482) No. 86 of 2010 with Stay Vacation Application (CRMA) No. 174 of 2010 Amit Sharma S/o Shri Rajkumar Sharma R/o Main Bazar Mohalla Kila Manglore, P.S. Kotwali Manglore Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar …..…Petitioner Versus Sachin Singhal, S/o Shri Manmohan Singhal Prop. Sachin Furniture and Electronics Main Bazar Mohalla Kila, Manglore P.S. Kotwali Manglore Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar ……….Respondent Mr. S.K. Shandilya, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Mr. Rajendra Singh, Advocate, present for the respondent . Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2. By means of this petition moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.) the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal case no. 1590 of 2009, Sachin Singhal vs. Amit Sharma, 2 relating to offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Police Station Kotwali Manglore, District Haridwar. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is nowhere pleaded by the respondent (complainant) that the notice required under section 138 (3) of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was actually served on the petitioner. Attention of this Court is drawn to Shakti Travel & Tours vs. State of Bihar (2002) 9SCC page 415, and it is contended that the proceedings should be quashed as the notices were not served on the petitioner. However, pare 3 of the criminal complaint copy of which is annexed as Annex. 1 to the petition shows that the complainant (present respondent) has pleaded that notice was sent to the petitioner on 17.03.2009, by registered post but the petitioner has not paid the amount. Hence, the criminal complaint was filed on 28.04.2009. In the opinion of this Court, there is no infirmity in the criminal complaint which can be said to be the ground for quashing it. The latest view of three Judges of the Apex Court in C.C. Allavi Haji vs. Palapetty Muhammed (2007) 6SCC page 555, it has 3 been held that where the notice has been sent by registered post to the accused there will be presumption of service of the same. Otherwise also the object of the notice is to allow accused to make payment of the amount for which the cheque was got dishonourd. The petitioner has nowhere stated that even after receiving summons from the court, he made payment within 15 days of the amount to the complainant. 4. In the above circumstances, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings by exercising powers under section 482 Cr.P.C.. Accordingly, the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., is dismissed . Interim order dated 29.01.2010, stands vacated. (Stay vacation application no. 174 of 2010, also stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Parul 26.09.2011