Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. M. Shashikala, filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.51659/2013 pending before the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru. The respondent, Sri Krishna Murthy, had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act) alleging dishonour of a cheque. The undisputed facts are that the respondent issued a cheque bearing No.000020 dated 17.12.2012 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Indiranagar Branch, Bengaluru. The cheque was presented and returned dishonoured on 19.12.2012. The respondent sent a statutory notice dated 19.01.2013 demanding payment of the cheque amount. Since payment was not made, a complaint was filed on 28.02.2013. The learned Magistrate dispensed with the sworn statement of the complainant and permitted filing of an affidavit in lieu thereof on 23.08.2013, and being satisfied that ingredients of Section 138 were made out, took cognizance and issued process. The petitioner contended that the complaint was not maintainable because the statutory notice was not issued within the stipulated period of 30 days from receipt of information of dishonour, as required under Section 138(b) of the Act. The respondent's counsel submitted that if the petition is allowed, the respondent may be reserved with the right to institute a civil suit for recovery of the cheque amount. The court examined the dates: the cheque was dishonoured on 19.12.2012, and the notice was issued on 19.01.2013. The period from 19.12.2012 to 19.01.2013 is 31 days, which exceeds the 30-day limit prescribed under Section 138(b) of the Act. The court held that the notice was issued beyond the statutory period, and therefore the complaint was not maintainable. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and quashed the entire proceedings in C.C.No.51659/2013. The court also observed that the respondent is at liberty to institute a civil suit for recovery of the cheque amount, if so advised.
Headnote
A) Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Section 138(b) - Limitation for Notice - The statutory notice demanding payment must be issued within 30 days of receipt of information of dishonour from the bank. In this case, the cheque was dishonoured on 19.12.2012, but the notice was issued on 19.01.2013, which is 31 days later, exceeding the prescribed period. Held that the complaint is not maintainable and liable to be quashed. (Paras 4-5) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Inherent Powers - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of Proceedings - Where the complaint is barred by limitation due to delayed notice, the High Court can exercise its inherent powers to quash the proceedings to prevent abuse of process of court. Held that the proceedings in C.C.No.51659/2013 are quashed. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is maintainable when the statutory notice demanding payment was issued beyond the 30-day period prescribed under Section 138(b) of the Act.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The entire proceedings in C.C.No.51659/2013 on the file of XIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru, are quashed. The respondent is at liberty to institute a civil suit for recovery of the cheque amount, if so advised.
Law Points
- Statutory notice under Section 138(b) of Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881 must be issued within 30 days of receipt of information of dishonour
- Notice issued on 31st day is beyond the prescribed period
- Complaint based on delayed notice is not maintainable
- High Court can quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when complaint is barred by limitation
