TRUPTIRANJAN DAS Vs. STATE OF ODISHA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 did not appear in spite of repeated calls. Perused the records.

(2.) This application under Sec. 482, Crimial P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceeding in I.C.C. Case No. 221 of 2013 pending on the file of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, on the ground that the said complaint case, which is under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is barred by limitation in terms of the provisions under Sec. 142 of the N.I. Act since notice demanding payment was issued by the complainant more than thirty days after the fact of dishonour of the cheque was made known to him.

(3.) It appears from the complaint petition itself that the cheque was issued on 12.08.2012 and on the same day it was presented before the Bank by the opposite party-complainant which was dishonoured and accordingly the opposite party received intimation from the bank on 06.09.2012. It is alleged that on the request of the petitioner, the complainant-opposite party No. 2 waited for some time and issued notice to the petitioner demanding payment on 15.12.2012 which was said to have been acknowledged by the petitioner and that on the request of the petitioner he waited for some time and payment having not been made, he filed the complaint petition on 18.01.2013.