Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings in Cheque Dishonour Case Due to Lack of Proper Service of Demand Notice. Accused Acquitted as Complainant Failed to Prove Service of Notice Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Accused
  • 4
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The judgment pertains to three criminal applications filed by the applicants seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The applicants were accused in separate complaints filed by the respondent-complainant Shyamsunder s/o Nathulaji Vedmutha (Jain) alleging dishonour of cheques. The core issue was whether the statutory demand notice under Section 138 was properly served on the applicants. The court examined the evidence regarding service of notice, noting that the complainant had sent notices by registered post but the acknowledgments were not produced or were not signed by the applicants. The court held that the burden lies on the complainant to prove service of notice, and mere dispatch is insufficient. Since the complainant failed to establish that the notices were actually delivered or deemed to be served, the proceedings were quashed. The court relied on the principle that the requirement of notice is mandatory and its service must be proved to maintain the prosecution.

Headnote

A) Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Section 138 - Service of Demand Notice - Proper service of demand notice is a mandatory requirement for initiating prosecution under Section 138 - The complainant must prove that the notice was sent by registered post or other prescribed mode and that it was actually served or deemed to be served - Held that in the absence of proof of service, the proceedings are liable to be quashed (Paras 5-10).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be sustained when the complainant fails to prove proper service of the statutory demand notice on the accused.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the criminal applications and quashed the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the applicants.

Law Points

  • Service of demand notice
  • Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act
  • 1881
  • Presumption of service
  • Registered post
  • Acknowledgment due
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2020 LawText (BOM) (11) 10

Criminal Application No. 4099 of 2017, Criminal Application No. 4183 of 2017, Criminal Application No. 4210 of 2017

2020-11-10

T.V. Nalawade, Shrikant D. Kulkarni

Mr B.N. Magar, Mr K.S. Patil, Mr C.R. Deshpande, Mr R.A. Shedge

Suganchand s/o Manakchand Deoda, Vinod s/o Vasantrao Jadhav, Rupesh s/o Rameshchandra Baheti, Mrs Rupali Rupesh Baheti, Sunilchand s/o Dulichand Lodha, Aruna w/o Sunilchand Lodha, Vinay s/o Sunilchand Lodha, Prakashchand s/o Uttamchand Parakh, Bhavana w/o Bharat Parakh, Kismat s/o Nathuramji Borele

The State of Maharashtra, Shyamsunder s/o Nathulaji Vedmutha (Jain)

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal applications for quashing of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Remedy Sought

Quashing of criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent-complainant for dishonour of cheques.

Filing Reason

The applicants alleged that the statutory demand notice under Section 138 was not properly served on them.

Issues

Whether the demand notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was properly served on the accused. Whether the criminal proceedings can be sustained in the absence of proof of service of notice.

Submissions/Arguments

The applicants argued that the demand notice was not served on them and the complainant failed to prove service. The complainant contended that the notice was sent by registered post and therefore deemed to be served.

Ratio Decidendi

The requirement of service of demand notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is mandatory. The complainant must prove that the notice was sent by registered post or other prescribed mode and that it was actually served or deemed to be served. Mere dispatch is insufficient. In the absence of proof of service, the prosecution cannot be maintained.

Judgment Excerpts

The requirement of notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is mandatory and its service must be proved. Mere dispatch of notice by registered post is not sufficient; the complainant must prove that the notice was actually delivered or deemed to be served.

Procedural History

The applicants filed criminal applications before the High Court seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 pending before the trial court. The applications were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

Acts & Sections

  • Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: 138
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings in Cheque Dishonour Case Due to Lack of Proper Service of Demand Notice. Accused Acquitted as Complainant Failed to Prove Service of Notice Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Union and State in Consumer Protection Rules Challenge, Reversing High Court's Striking Down of Qualification and Procedure Provisions. Rules 3(2)(b), 4(2)(c), and 6(9) of Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, meth...