DEVDATT BHARADWAJ Vs. SANTOSH VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) challenges the order dated 2.11.2011, passed by the court below in Criminal Revision No. 140/2011. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 1.7.2010, by which cognizance was taken on the complaint filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, the "NI Act").

(2.) Shri Rajesh Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that as per the story mentioned in the complaint, a cheque was issued on 10.3.2010. The same was dishonoured for want of sufficient fund in the bank. The complainant resubmitted the said cheque. It was again dishonoured on 23.3.2010. The complainant further submitted it before the bank, which was dishonoured on 12.6.2010. Before this date, on 9.4.2010 a legal notice was issued to the petitioner for making the payment. However, complaint is filed on 21.6.2010. The complaint is hopelessly barred by time from the date of first dishonour of cheque or from the date of issuance of cheque on 10.3.2010. He relied on (S.L.Constructions and another vs. Alapati Srinivasa Rao and another, 2009 1 SCC(Cri) 558) and (Tameeshwar Vaishnav vs. Ramvishal Gupta, 2010 2 SCC(Cri) 1033). Lastly, reliance is placed on (Yogendra Pratap Singh vs. Savitri Pandey and anothr, 2015 1 SCC(Cri) 226 ).

(3.) On a specific query from the Bench, Shri Shukla contended that the judgments of Supreme Court in S.L.Constructions and Tameeshwar Vaishnav are still good law. By taking assistance from the judgment of Yogendra Pratap Singh , he urged that the cheque was lastly bounced on 12.6.2010. After this, no notice was issued nor the complainant waited for stipulated time as per section 138 r/w section 142 of NI Act. Hence, the complaint is not maintainable.