HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.8949 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner who is accused of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, the Act) seeks quashing of complaint on the ground that there was no service of statutory notice under Section 138(b) of the Act to the accused and that the address mentioned on the envelope of the statutory notice is incorrect and that therefore it cannot be said that there is valid service of statutory notice. As per cause title in the complaint, address of the accused is given as resident of H.No.9-93/1, Kothireddypalli Cross Road, Sangareddy town. On the envelope, address of the accused is noted as H.No.9-93/4, Pothireddypalli Cross Road, Sangareddy Post. Designation of the accused is correctly given as Manager, M.G.Brothers Automobile Private Limited, both in the complaint as well as on the postal envelope of the notice. In the complaint, in the list of documents, item No.5 is noted unclaimed registered cover dated 18.04.2009. The notice was dated 26.03.2009 and it was sent by post vide postal receipt dated 26.03.2009. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the 1st respondent/complainant gave incorrect address on the envelope of the statutory notice and that therefore it was returned unserved as there was no such addressee residing in that door number. On the back of the envelope, several dates are noted. Ultimately, the cover was returned and it is filed as unclaimed registered postal cover. It is contended by the 1st respondent’s counsel that H.No.9-93/1 is one property in which there are four shutters and each shutter is given different sub-number and that when the postman went to the property and gave intimation to the accused, he did not go to the post office to claim the registered cover and that therefore the registered cover was sent back to the addressor as not claimed. I am of the opinion that the dispute relating to sub-number of the house and service of intimation by the postman on the accused and the accused disclaiming the postal envelope, are questions of fact which this Court cannot entertain and decide in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. They are all questions to be decided by the trial Court after both the parties lead oral and documentary evidence to prove their respective contentions. I leave this question open and direct the trial Court to proceed with the trial of the case and decide the matter after recording evidence in the criminal case. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that in the complaint, the complainant did not give the date of service of statutory notice on the accused and that therefore in view of SHAKTI TRAVEL AND TOURS V STATE OF BIHAR[1] of the Supreme Court, the complaint is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. In this case, there is no service of statutory notice in fact; and there was return of the notice. Date of sending of notice and date of return of notice are all furnished in the complaint. Therefore, the above said verdict of the Supreme Court cannot be applied to this case. Subject to the above observation, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Dt. 31st October, 2011. PNV [1] 2002(9) SCC 415