PARDEEP KUMAR Vs. PRITHVI RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner through this petition is seeking quashing of the proceedings initiated on the complaint filed by the Respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act by invoking the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, precisely on the ground that when the first notice of demand was sent by the Respondent and was returned by the postal authorities as "unclaimed" whether the subsequent dishonour of cheque and sending of the second notice of demand accrued a fresh cause of action and the complaint would be within limitation.

(2.) As a matter of fact the cause of action may still arise for prosecution of the drawer of the cheque on the basis of deemed service of notice under Clause (c) to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. This question has to be answered by reference to the facts of each case. In D. Vinod Shivappa v. Nanda Belliappa, 2006 AIR(SC) 2179, the Apex Court observed that no rule of universal application can be laid down that in all cases where notice is not served on account of non-availability of the addressee, the Court must presume service of notice.

(3.) It is well settled that in interpreting a statute the Court must adopt that construction which suppresses the mischief and advances the remedy. The proviso (c) to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is meant to protect honest drawers whose cheques may have been dishonoured for fault of others or who may genuinely wanted to fulfill their promise, but on account of inadvertence or negligence failed to make necessary arrangements for the payment of the cheque. This proviso is not meant to protect unscrupulous drawers who never intended to honour the cheques issued by them, it being a part of their modus operandi to cheat unsuspecting persons.