NEELU MEHTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint filed against her under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner is seeking quashing of the complaint primarily on the ground that it was barred by limitation and there was no proof of service of notice of demand before the Magistrate, at the time of passing the summoning order.

(2.) The petitioner herself has stated in ground (ii) of the petition that the service of notice was effected on her on 23rd February, 2009. She has also obtained a certificate from the Postal Department to the effect that the notice was served upon her on 23rd February, 2009. The complaint has been filed on 13 th April, 2009. Admittedly, 10 th April, 2009, 11th April, 2009 and 12th April, 2009 being holidays, the Courts were closed on that dates. Consequently, the prescribed period of limitation expired on 13th April, 2009, if computed from 23rd February, 2009, the date on which the petitioner claims to have received the notice.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred the decision of this Court in HDFC Bank Limited vs. Amit Kumar Singh 160 (2009) Delhi Law Times 478. In the case of HDFC Bank (Supra), the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has dismissed the complaint on the ground that there was no proof of service of notice, alleged to have been issued by the complainant. A perusal of the judgment would show that the complainant had averred in the complaint that the notice "was sent/posted to the accused on 14th January, 2009 by Registered A.D. Post at his above-stated address as the same was duly provided time and again." The registered cover, whereby the notice was sent, was not received back and the complainant claimed that the notice had been duly served upon the accused, who despite service of notice, had failed to make payment of the amount of dishonoured cheque. As noted in para 4 of the judgment, the question before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was, whether it could be said that the legal notice issued to the drawer of the dishonoured cheque was, in fact, served on the drawer. After discussion, this Court held: