Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court disposed of a batch of petitions and applications under Section 482 CrPC and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, seeking quashing of criminal complaints for dishonour of cheques. The common issue was whether the statutory demand notice under Section 138 NI Act was validly served upon the accused. The court examined the requirement of service of notice within 30 days of dishonour and the mode of service. It held that mere dispatch of notice by speed post or courier is insufficient to prove service; the complainant must produce cogent evidence such as delivery receipt, acknowledgment, or tracking report to establish that the notice was actually delivered to the accused. The presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act applies only to registered post, not to speed post or courier. In the absence of proof of service, the complaints were quashed as they would be an abuse of process. The court allowed the applications and petitions, quashing the respective complaints.
Headnote
A) Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Service of Demand Notice - Section 138, 142 NI Act - Requirement of proper service of demand notice within 30 days of dishonour - Complaints quashed where notice sent by speed post/courier but not proved to have been delivered to accused - Held that mere dispatch is not enough; service must be proved by cogent evidence such as delivery receipt or acknowledgment (Paras 10-15). B) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of Complaint - Section 482 CrPC - Inherent powers to prevent abuse of process - Complaints under Section 138 NI Act quashed where statutory notice not served - Held that continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process (Paras 16-20). C) Evidence - Presumption of Service - Section 27 General Clauses Act, 1897 - Presumption of service arises only when notice is sent by registered post - For speed post/courier, no such presumption - Complainant must prove actual delivery (Paras 12-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether criminal complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be quashed on the ground that the statutory demand notice was not properly served upon the accused, and what constitutes valid service of notice.
Final Decision
The court allowed the applications and petitions, quashing the respective criminal complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, on the ground that the statutory demand notice was not properly served upon the accused.
Law Points
- Service of demand notice under Section 138 NI Act must be proved by cogent evidence
- mere dispatch insufficient
- presumption under Section 27 General Clauses Act rebuttable
- strict compliance with statutory requirements
- quashing of complaint if notice not properly served
