VIJAY KUMAR CHOPRA Vs. SHAM LAL DEV RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed by the accused Vijay Kumar Chopra under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the complaint dated 9.11.1994 (Annexure P-1), summoning order dated 29.8.1997 (Annexure P-2) and all the consequent proceedings taken in pursuance thereof on the ground that all these proceedings were abuse of the process of the Court as well as the law.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that the respondent-complainant had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dis- honouring the cheques : one cheque is dated 20.3.1994 for a sum of Rs. 52,788/-, another cheque is dated 10.4.1994 for a sum of Rs. 43,497/-. Notices were sent on 10.4.1994 and 30.4.1994 but the petitioner did not make payment in pursuance of the aforesaid notices. It is further alleged that the respondent issued notice dated 24.9.1994. Since, the amount was not paid, so, on the basis of the said notice, complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed. Learned Counsel for the respondent contended that after notices dated 10.4.1994 and 30.4.1994 were served upon the petitioner, he had approached the respondent and had requested that for certain reasons, he could not deposit the amount and the respondent should again present the cheques on 1.9.1994 and he would get the amount deposited. However, there is no documentary evidence to prove this assertion. It is not the case that the petitioner had given fresh cheques to be payable on 1.9.1994 or he had given in writing that the cheques be again presented on 1.9.1994 and he would deposit the amount. Certainly, the complaint was filed on 9.11.1994, after the expiry of 206 days from the service of notice dated 30.4.1994. It has been held by the Apex court in Sadanandan Bhadran v. Madhavan Sunil Kumar, 1998(4) RCR(Crl.) 90 (SC) : JT 1998(6) SC 48, that successive presentation of dishonoured cheques does not extend the period of limitation. However, Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not put any embargo upon the payee to successfully present dishonoured cheques during the period of its validity. The cheque can be presented any number of times during the period of its validity but the prosecution can be launched for the first dishonour of the cheque only as there cannot be more than one cause of action for prosecution under Section 142(c) of the Act. Therefore, the complaint is clearly barred by time as it has been filed after 45 days from the date of service of notice datd 30.4.1994. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and the complaint and subsequent proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are quashed. Revision allowed.