VINOD KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Vinay Saran for the opposite party No. 2; and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

(2.) BY the present application, the applicant has sought quashing of the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1117 of 2012, pending in the Court of III A.C.J.M., Gautambudh Nagar under Sections 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the applicant has pressed only two grounds for quashing of proceedings, which are as under: (a) that in the complaint it has not been alleged as to when the notice of demand was served on the accused although the date and mode of dispatch of the notice has been mentioned; (b) that the court at Gautambugh Nagar has no jurisdiction inasmuch as the cheque that returned unpaid was issued within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi and was also drawn on a Bank within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi. Sri Vinay Saran, Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 2 submitted that the mode and the manner by which the notice of demand has been given is detailed in the complaint and is also substantiated on record by copy of the demand notice, receipt showing dispatch of notice by registered post and the statement that the said notice has been served. It has been submitted that the complaint clearly discloses that the notice of demand was sent both at the Registered Office and Corporate Office address of the accused company, which was substantiated by the copy of the demand notice and the postal receipts showing dispatch by registered post. He has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Vinay Patni v. State of U. P. and another, 2013 80 AllCriC 1, where, in paragraph 13, it has been observed as follows: