IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.33839 of 2010 NIRAJ KUMAR Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 2/ 27.10.2010 None appears for the petitioner. I have heard Shri Dashrath Mehta, learned APP for the State. The petition seeks quashing of order dated 25.8.2008 by which Shri Sanjay Kumar, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patna has summoned the petitioner for facing a trial under the charge of committing an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Cognizance of the above noted offence is provided for by section 142 of the Act and it is provided by section 142(a) of the Act that no court shall take cognizance of the offence punishable under section 138 of the Act except upon a complaint in writing made by the payee or as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque. The further condition is contained in section 142(b) of the Act which indicates that the complaint may not be filed within one month of the date on which cause of action arises under Clause – C of the proviso to section 138 of the Act. On the perusal of the provision of section 138 of the Act, what appears is that the cheque has to be presented to the bank for payment within a period of six months from the date it is drawn and within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier. It further appears that the payee or holder in due course 2 of the cheque has to make the demand for payment of money of the cheque amount by giving a notice in writing to a drawer of the cheque within thirty days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and, lastly, it the drawer of such cheque fails to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, or as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque within fifteen days of the said date. Thus, what appears is that if the cheque bounces back on account of any reason and the amount is not paid to the holder in due course, he is required to give a notice in writing within thirty days of receipt of such information regarding the reason of non-payment of the amount and, thereafter, even if he does not get the amount paid to him, then he shall have to wait for fifteen days further and then file a complaint. What appears from the statements made in the complaint petition is that after having received the information from the bank about the dishonour of the cheque, the complainant orally informed the accused regarding non- payment. This statement is made in paragraph 3 of the complaint petition. It is further stated that the complainant sent a registered notice to the accused on 29.4.2008 for paying up the amount but he did not receive the payment and lastly, he filed the complaint petition on 11.6.2008. The date on which the complaint was filed, appears covered fully by the provision of 3 section 138 of the Act. In that view of the matter, the order of cognizance appears properly passed, as a result of which, this petition is dismissed as of no merit. Anil/ ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)