VINAY KUMAR MISHRA Vs. ADITYA NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 assailing the order dtd. 8/2/2023 passed by the learned 4th Upper Sessions Judge, Satna in CRR No. 54/2022, whereby the revisional Court affirmed the order dtd. 1/7/2022 passed by the learned JMFC, Satna in unregistered Complaint Case No. 824/2020, dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the ground that the complaint was premature due to non-disclosure of the service report of the statutory notice.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and the respondent are residents of District Satna (M.P.) and are known to each other due to their long-standing family relationship. Owing to financial necessity, the respondent borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000.00 from the petitioner on different dates i.e., 19/7/2019 and 2/8/2019. In discharge of the aforesaid liability, the respondent initially issued two cheques of Rs.2,00,000.00 and Rs.3,00,000.00, which were dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Thereafter, the respondent issued another cheque bearing No. 509517 dtd. 18/10/2019 for Rs.5,00,000.00, which was also dishonoured. Subsequently, the respondent took back the earlier cheque and issued a fresh cheque bearing No. 034987 dtd. 20/7/2020 drawn on Allahabad Bank for Rs.5,00,000.00. The said cheque, when presented, was again dishonoured on 27/7/2020 due to insufficient funds. The petitioner then issued a statutory legal notice dtd. 11/8/2020, sent on 12/8/2020 by registered post demanding payment of the cheque amount within the prescribed period. Since the respondent failed to make the payment within 15 days, the petitioner filed a complaint under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on 1/9/2020.

(3.) During the proceedings before the learned JMFC, the Court directed the petitioner to produce the track report regarding service of the notice. According to petitioner, due to the circumstances arising from the COVID-19 pandemic and nationwide lockdown, the petitioner could not obtain the track report despite efforts and filed an affidavit stating that the notice had been served. However, the learned JMFC dismissed the complaint on 1/7/2022, holding that the petitioner failed to disclose the date of service of notice upon the respondent and therefore the limitation period under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could not be calculated.