Bombay High Court Quashes Process in Cheque Dishonour Case Due to Lack of Proper Service of Demand Notice. The court held that the demand notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 must be properly served on the accused, and if returned unclaimed, the complainant must take steps to serve by other modes.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 79
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The applicant, Amit Digvijay Singh, filed a criminal application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the order dated 9th May 2019 passed by the 6th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nashik, issuing process against him for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The respondent-complainant, Gokuldas Jagannath Bhutada, alleged that the applicant had taken a hand loan of Rs. 30,00,000 and issued a cheque dated 15.12.2017 which was dishonoured. The complainant sent a demand notice dated 20.01.2018 via registered post, which was returned with the endorsement 'not claimed'. The complainant then filed a complaint on 27.02.2018, and the Magistrate issued process on 09.05.2019. The applicant contended that the notice was not properly served as it was returned unclaimed and no other mode of service was attempted. The court examined the provisions of Section 138 and the requirement of proper service of notice. It held that the notice must be served in accordance with the principles of natural justice and that mere sending by registered post is not sufficient if the notice is returned unclaimed. The court quashed the order issuing process and dismissed the complaint, allowing the application.

Headnote

A) Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Section 138 - Demand Notice - Service of Notice - The court considered whether the complainant had properly served the statutory demand notice on the accused before filing the complaint. The court held that the notice sent by registered post was returned with endorsement 'not claimed' and the complainant did not take steps to serve notice by other modes like affixture or publication. Therefore, the issuance of process was quashed as there was no proper service of notice. (Paras 1-15)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the issuance of process under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was valid when the demand notice was not properly served on the accused.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the application, quashed the order issuing process, and dismissed the complaint.

Law Points

  • Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act
  • 1881
  • demand notice
  • service of notice
  • issuance of process
  • prima facie case
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019 LawText (BOM) (07) 112

Criminal Application No. 702 of 2019

2019-07-19

S.S. Shinde, J.

Mr. S.V. Marwadi i/by. Mr. N.M. Nadar for the Applicant, Mrs. S.R. Agarkar, APP for Respondent – State, Mr. Mayank Bagla i/by. Mr. Jainish Jain for Respondent No. 1

Amit Digvijay Singh

Gokuldas Jagannath Bhutada, The State of Maharashtra

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

Nature of Litigation

Criminal application under Section 482 CrPC challenging issuance of process under Section 138 NI Act

Remedy Sought

Quashing of order issuing process and dismissal of complaint

Filing Reason

Improper service of demand notice

Previous Decisions

Magistrate issued process on 09.05.2019

Issues

Whether the demand notice under Section 138 NI Act was properly served on the accused when it was returned unclaimed and no other mode of service was attempted.

Submissions/Arguments

Applicant argued that the notice was not served as it was returned unclaimed and no affixture or publication was done. Respondent argued that sending by registered post is sufficient service.

Ratio Decidendi

For a valid complaint under Section 138 NI Act, the demand notice must be properly served on the accused. If the notice sent by registered post is returned unclaimed, the complainant must take steps to serve by other modes like affixture or publication. Failure to do so renders the complaint not maintainable.

Judgment Excerpts

The notice sent by registered post was returned with endorsement 'not claimed' and the complainant did not take steps to serve notice by other modes like affixture or publication. Therefore, the issuance of process was quashed as there was no proper service of notice.

Procedural History

Complaint filed on 27.02.2018; Magistrate issued process on 09.05.2019; Applicant filed Criminal Application No. 702 of 2019 on 10.07.2019; Judgment pronounced on 19.07.2019.

Acts & Sections

  • Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: 138
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 482
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Union of India's Petition Challenging Tribunal Order Restoring Seniority of Railway Employee. Seniority based on merit in selection test cannot be altered arbitrarily after three years.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Section 9 Petition for Interim Relief Despite Pending SICA Reference — Guarantors' Liability Not Barred by SICA. Financial Institution's Petition Under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for Appointment...