In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M- 11027 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.7.2010 Renu Rana ......Petitioner Versus Bahadur Singh .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.P.C.Goyal, Advocate, for the respondent. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the complaint (Annexure P-5) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the summoning order dated 3.10.2008 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phillaur and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent has presented the cheque in question on 12.2.2008 with the bank for encashment. However, the said cheque was dishonoured vide memo dated 10.4.2008 with the remarks “Insufficient Funds”. Thereafter, the complainant issued a notice dated 5.5.2008 to the petitioner qua dishonour of the cheque. The complainant did not file the complaint within the requisite period of Criminal Misc. No.M- 11027 of 2009 (O&M) -2- limitation but again re-presented the cheque to the bank for encashment. The said cheque was again dishonoured and the respondent served another notice dated 29.8.2008 on the petitioner. Thereafter, the complaint in question has been filed. The complaint could not be filed on the basis of the second legal notice served by the respondent on the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that after the cheque was dishonoured at the first instance by the bank, the respondent asked the petitioner to pay back the amount in question. The petitioner assured the respondent that in case the cheque was presented, it would be encashed as now sufficient amount had been deposited. Thereafter, the cheque was re-presented for encashment and the same again was dishonoured and consequently, a fresh notice was issued to the petitioner. The complaint in question was, thus, legally maintainable. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. Bahadur Singh-respondent had filed the complaint against petitioner Renu Rana on the allegations that the cheque in question dated 12.2.2008 bearing No.836058 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- had been issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent. When the said cheque was presented for encashment, the same was returned back by the bank vide memo dated 10.4.2008 with the remarks “Insufficient Funds”. In para Nos.6 and 7 of the complaint (Annexure P-5), it has been averred as under:- Criminal Misc. No.M- 11027 of 2009 (O&M) -3- “6. That as per assurance of the accused, the complainant presented the cheque, through his banker State Bank of India, Branch Phillaur, but the same returned dishonoured, vide memo of the bank dated 10.4.2008 with the remarks “Insufficient Funds”. After the dishonour of the cheque, the complainant approached the accused in person and requested her to pay the amount, as mentioned in the cheque, on request of the complainant, the accused asked the complainant to again present the cheque as she has deposited the required amount in her account and this time, the cheque will be honoured on its presentation. 7. That on the assurance of the accused, the complainant again presented the cheque, through his banker for the purpose of encashment through his banker, State Bank of India, branch Phillaur, but again the cheque in question returned dishonoured with memo of the bank dated 6.8.2008 with the remarks “Funds Insufficient” and the banker of the complainant informed the complainant, vide memo dated 13.8.2008 of S.B.I. Phillaur.” Thus, as per the allegations in the complaint, the cheque in question had been re-presented with the bank for encashment by the complainant-respondent on the assurance given by the petitioner Criminal Misc. No.M- 11027 of 2009 (O&M) -4- that now sufficient amount has been deposited in the account and the cheque be presented for re-encashment. In these circumstances, it would be a matter of evidence whether the complaint can be treated to be within limitation or not. At this stage, it would not be appropriate or in the interest of justice to quash the complaint on the ground that it is beyond limitation. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 15, 2010 anita