S. R. SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Raghuraj Kishore, learned counsel for the petitioner S.R. Srivastava and the learned AGA and perused the record.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was barred by limitation in view of the fact that the notice regarding dishonour of the cheque was delivered to the respondent no.2 on 22.12.2006 where as the complaint was filed on 6.4.2007.? This submission seems to be misconceived in view of the fact that the respondent no.2 has stated very specifically in para 8 of the complaint that the bank informed him regarding dishonour of the cheque lastly on 8.3.2007 and the requisite notice to the petitioner was given on 19.3.2007.? After service of the notice, the complaint was filed within the prescribed period on 6.4.2007, therefore, the question of limitation raised by the counsel for the applicant has no substance.? The complaint prima facie discloses the offence under section138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there is likelihood of compromise between the parties. The parties may do so even after dismissal of this petition. It is however, provided that in case petitioner S.R. Srivastava appears before the Magistrate concerned within 30 days from today and applies for bail in case no. 729 of 2009 Sunil Kumar v. S.R. Srivastava under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Orai district Jalaun, his bail prayer shall be given due consideration in the light of principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P., 2009 4 SCC 437.