DARSHAN SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused in complaint case No. C/221 of 1999 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has filed this case under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the criminal case mentioned before. At the time of hearing of the rule an interim stay of further proceeding of the criminal procedure was passed. Therefore, the complainant/opposite party being aggrieved by such interim order has filed an application for vacating the same.

(2.) The learned advocates appearing for both the parties have however, agreed that instead of taking of the vacating application, they suggested to take up the original application for quashing of the proceeding. Therefore, the matter was taken up for hearing. The complainant/opposite party was the petitioner's financier for purchasing a truck on hire purchase agreement. Accordingly he availed of the loan to purchase the truck. It was agreed by and between the parties that the petitioner shall pay hire charges in respect of the loan for 24 monthly instalments to the opposite party No. 2 commencing from 29th May, 1997. But, however, a cheque sent by the petitioner was bounced. Therefore, the opposite party No. 2 sent a notice to the petitioner calling upon the latter to clear up the dues. Even after receipt of the said notice when the petitioner failed to discharge his liability towards the bounced cheque, the opposite party No. 2 was, therefore, obliged to file a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Pursuant to the said complaint process was issued and accordingly the petitioner appeared before the Court below. But being aggrieved by such initiation of the criminal proceeding he has filed this case for quashing of the case.

(3.) Mr. S.S. Roy the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has strongly contended that since the criminal complaint was barred by limitation as it was not filed within 15 days after service of notice, therefore, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate ought to have dismissed the complaint on the ground of limitation. Mr. Roy has further stressed that the petitioner received the notice on 18.1.1999, therefore, the opposite party No. 2 ought to have filed complaint within 30 days from the date of service of notice upon the petitioner.