High Court

1. Heard Sri Abhishek, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.K Singh learned AGA for the State.

2. This is an application filed U/s 528 BNSS for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 25.10.2024 passed by Judicial Magistrate, court no.2 Meerut in complaint case no. 10650 of 2024 under Section 138 of N.I. Act, P.S. Sadar Bazar, District Meerut.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a complaint stood lodged on 23.05.2024 against the applicant relatable to the commission of offence under Section 138 of N.I Act regarding dishonour of three cheques bearing no. 533682 dated 03.04.2024, 533683 dated 02.04.2024 and 533685 dated 02.04.2024 which when presented in the bank on 03.04.2024 was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds dated 04.04.2024. A statutory notice is stated to have been issued on 24.04.2024 followed by complaint on 23.05.2024. Thereafter the court of Judicial Magistrate, court no.2 Meerut proceeded to summon the applicant on 25.10.2024. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that though it is recited in the complaint i.e. on 24.04.2024 a statutory notice was issued but there is no recital about the date when the said notice was served. He further submits that in absence of any recital of the date of service, the complaint would not be maintainable in this regard.

4. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that these are the matter of trial which cannot be gone into at this stage.

5. I have heard the submissions made across the bar. Apparently, three cheques for an amount of Rs. 10 lacs each stood drawn which was dishonoured on 04.04.2024 and a statutory notice was issued on 24.04.2024 and a complaint was preferred on 23.05.2024. Though in paragraph-6 of the complaint, this much has been asserted that on 24.04.2024 a demand notice has been sent which has been received but according to learned counsel for the applicant there has to be a particular date on which service has been made and the recital should be in the complaint. The issue as to whether the complaint would fail in case the date of service has not been recited in the complaint in no more res-integra as the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajeet Seeds Ltd. vs. K. Gopala Krishnaiah 2014 (12) SCC 685 wherein in paragraph nos.10 and 11 which have been observed as under:- "10. It is thus clear that Section 114 of the Evidence Act enables the Court to presume that in the common course of natural events, the communication would have been delivered at the address of the addressee. Section 27 of the GC Act gives rise to a presumption that service of notice has been effected when it is sent to the correct address by registered post. It is not necessary to aver in the complaint that in spite of the return of the notice unserved, it is deemed to have been served or that the addressee is deemed to have knowledge of the notice. Unless and until the contrary is proved by the addressee, service of notice is deemed to have been effected at the time at which the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of business.

11. Applying the above conclusions to the facts of this case, it must be held that the High Court clearly erred in quashing the complaint on the ground that there was no recital in the complaint that the notice under Section 138 of the NI Act was served upon the accused. The High Court also erred in quashing the complaint on the ground that there was no proof either that the notice was served or it was returned unserved/unclaimed. That is a matter of evidence. We must mention that in C.C. Alavi Haji, this Court did not deviate from the view taken in Vinod Shivappa, but reiterated the view expressed therein with certain clarification. We have already quoted the relevant paragraphs from Vinod Shivappa where this Court has held that service of notice is a matter of evidence and proof and it would be premature at the stage of issuance of process to move the High Court for quashing of the proceeding under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. These observations are squarely attracted to the present case. The High Court?s reliance on an order passed by a two-Judge Bench in Shakti Travel & Tours is misplaced. The order in Shakti Travel & Tours does not give any idea about the factual matrix of that case. It does not advert to rival submissions. It cannot be said therefore that it lays down any law. In any case in C.C. Alavi Haji, to which we have made a reference, the three- Judge Bench has conclusively decided the issue. In our opinion, the judgment of the two-Judge Bench in Shakti Travel & Tours does not hold the field any more."

6. Applying the above noted judgment in the facts of the case, there happens to be a recital that the statutory demand notice had been issued which has been served which in view of the law laid down in the case of Ajeet Seeds (Supra) would be sufficient. The issue as to whether, it was actually served or not is a matter of trial which cannot be gone into in the present proceedings.

7. Accordingly, no case is made out and the present application is hereby rejected.

8. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants submits that suitable direction be issued in light of the judgment in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another; decided on 07.10.2021 in S.L.P. No.5191 of 2021 with relation to enlargement on bail.

9. In the opinion of the Court, once a bail application is preferred then the same shall be considered with most expeditions strictly as per the law of the land without any delay. Order Date :- 2.5.2025 C. MANI (Vikas Budhwar,J.)

1. Heard Sri Abhishek, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.K Singh learned AGA for the State.

2. This is an application filed U/s 528 BNSS for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 25.10.2024 passed by Judicial Magistrate, court no.2 Meerut in complaint case no. 10650 of 2024 under Section 138 of N.I. Act, P.S. Sadar Bazar, District Meerut.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a complaint stood lodged on 23.05.2024 against the applicant relatable to the commission of offence under Section 138 of N.I Act regarding dishonour of three cheques bearing no. 533682 dated 03.04.2024, 533683 dated 02.04.2024 and 533685 dated 02.04.2024 which when presented in the bank on 03.04.2024 was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds dated 04.04.2024. A statutory notice is stated to have been issued on 24.04.2024 followed by complaint on 23.05.2024. Thereafter the court of Judicial Magistrate, court no.2 Meerut proceeded to summon the applicant on 25.10.2024. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that though it is recited in the complaint i.e. on 24.04.2024 a statutory notice was issued but there is no recital about the date when the said notice was served. He further submits that in absence of any recital of the date of service, the complaint would not be maintainable in this regard.

4. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that these are the matter of trial which cannot be gone into at this stage.

5. I have heard the submissions made across the bar. Apparently, three cheques for an amount of Rs. 10 lacs each stood drawn which was dishonoured on 04.04.2024 and a statutory notice was issued on 24.04.2024 and a complaint was preferred on 23.05.2024. Though in paragraph-6 of the complaint, this much has been asserted that on 24.04.2024 a demand notice has been sent which has been received but according to learned counsel for the applicant there has to be a particular date on which service has been made and the recital should be in the complaint. The issue as to whether the complaint would fail in case the date of service has not been recited in the complaint in no more res-integra as the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajeet Seeds Ltd. vs. K. Gopala Krishnaiah 2014 (12) SCC 685 wherein in paragraph nos.10 and 11 which have been observed as under:- "10. It is thus clear that Section 114 of the Evidence Act enables the Court to presume that in the common course of natural events, the communication would have been delivered at the address of the addressee. Section 27 of the GC Act gives rise to a presumption that service of notice has been effected when it is sent to the correct address by registered post. It is not necessary to aver in the complaint that in spite of the return of the notice unserved, it is deemed to have been served or that the addressee is deemed to have knowledge of the notice. Unless and until the contrary is proved by the addressee, service of notice is deemed to have been effected at the time at which the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of business.

11. Applying the above conclusions to the facts of this case, it must be held that the High Court clearly erred in quashing the complaint on the ground that there was no recital in the complaint that the notice under Section 138 of the NI Act was served upon the accused. The High Court also erred in quashing the complaint on the ground that there was no proof either that the notice was served or it was returned unserved/unclaimed. That is a matter of evidence. We must mention that in C.C. Alavi Haji, this Court did not deviate from the view taken in Vinod Shivappa, but reiterated the view expressed therein with certain clarification. We have already quoted the relevant paragraphs from Vinod Shivappa where this Court has held that service of notice is a matter of evidence and proof and it would be premature at the stage of issuance of process to move the High Court for quashing of the proceeding under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. These observations are squarely attracted to the present case. The High Court?s reliance on an order passed by a two-Judge Bench in Shakti Travel & Tours is misplaced. The order in Shakti Travel & Tours does not give any idea about the factual matrix of that case. It does not advert to rival submissions. It cannot be said therefore that it lays down any law. In any case in C.C. Alavi Haji, to which we have made a reference, the three- Judge Bench has conclusively decided the issue. In our opinion, the judgment of the two-Judge Bench in Shakti Travel & Tours does not hold the field any more."

6. Applying the above noted judgment in the facts of the case, there happens to be a recital that the statutory demand notice had been issued which has been served which in view of the law laid down in the case of Ajeet Seeds (Supra) would be sufficient. The issue as to whether, it was actually served or not is a matter of trial which cannot be gone into in the present proceedings.

7. Accordingly, no case is made out and the present application is hereby rejected.

8. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants submits that suitable direction be issued in light of the judgment in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another; decided on 07.10.2021 in S.L.P. No.5191 of 2021 with relation to enlargement on bail.

9. In the opinion of the Court, once a bail application is preferred then the same shall be considered with most expeditions strictly as per the law of the land without any delay. Order Date :- 2.5.2025 C. MANI (Vikas Budhwar,J.)