High Court of Karnataka Quashes FIR and Proceedings in Cheque Dishonour Case Due to Lack of Proper Service of Demand Notice — Complaint Filed Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Fails as Notice Was Not Sent to Correct Address of Accused.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Accused
  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, Sri N. Subramani and Sri Vishwanath N., filed a criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of the proceedings in PCR No.1936/2014 pending before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, and the consequent FIR No.170/2014 registered by Kodigehalli Police Station. The second respondent, Sri Sudharshan K, had filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, based on a cheque dishonour. The petitioners contended that the demand notice under Section 138 was not properly served upon them as it was sent to an address where they did not reside. The court, after hearing the parties, found that the notice was indeed not served at the correct address of the petitioners. The court held that the complaint and the FIR were an abuse of the process of law and liable to be quashed. The court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings in PCR No.1936/2014 and FIR No.170/2014.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of Proceedings - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Abuse of Process - The court examined whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was maintainable when the demand notice was not sent to the correct address of the accused. Held that the notice was not properly served as it was sent to an address where the accused did not reside, and thus the proceedings were an abuse of process and liable to be quashed (Paras 2-5).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the proceedings in PCR No.1936/2014 and FIR No.170/2014 should be quashed on the ground that the demand notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was not properly served upon the petitioners.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings in PCR No.1936/2014 and FIR No.170/2014.

Law Points

  • Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act
  • 1881
  • Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure
  • 1973
  • Proper service of demand notice
  • Quashing of criminal proceedings
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2020 LawText (KAR) (07) 7

Criminal Petition No.4846/2016

2020-07-01

H.P. Sandesh

Sri Ramachandra G. Bhat for petitioners, Sri R.D. Renukaradhya for respondent 1, Sri R. Ravi for respondent 2

Sri N. Subramani and Sri Vishwanath N.

The State of Karnataka and Sri Sudharshan K

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

Nature of Litigation

Criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of private complaint and FIR in a cheque dishonour case.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought quashing of proceedings in PCR No.1936/2014 and FIR No.170/2014.

Filing Reason

The demand notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not properly served upon the petitioners.

Issues

Whether the demand notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was properly served upon the petitioners. Whether the proceedings in PCR No.1936/2014 and FIR No.170/2014 constitute an abuse of process of law.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the demand notice was sent to an address where they did not reside, hence not properly served. Respondents contended that the notice was validly served.

Ratio Decidendi

A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is not maintainable if the demand notice is not properly served upon the accused. The proceedings based on such a complaint are an abuse of process and liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Judgment Excerpts

The factual matrix of the case is that the second respondent has filed the private complaint which is numbered as PCR No.1936/2014 under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. The court found that the notice was not properly served as it was sent to an address where the accused did not reside.

Procedural History

The second respondent filed a private complaint (PCR No.1936/2014) under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, which led to the registration of FIR No.170/2014 by Kodigehalli Police. The petitioners then filed this criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the proceedings.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): Section 200, Section 482
  • Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: Section 138
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Forfeiture of Land Transferred in Violation of Ceiling Act. Exchange of Ceiling Surplus Land Without Collector's Sanction Under Section 29 of Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) A...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Quashes FIR and Proceedings in Cheque Dishonour Case Due to Lack of Proper Service of Demand Notice — Complaint Filed Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Fails as Notice Was Not Sent to Correct Address of A...