RAM PUKAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2.

(2.) THIS application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint case bearing C -1 No.1807 of 2007 including the order dated 7.12.2007 whereby and whereunder the then Judicial Magistrate, 1 st class, Jamshedpur took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against the petitioner. The ground of challenge of the order taking cognizance is that in the complaint there has been no averment with respect to service of notice upon the petitioner and thereby the complaint case cannot be maintained in view of the decision rendered in a case of Shakti Travel & Tour vs. State of Bihar and another [(2002) 9 SCC 415].

(3.) AS against this, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 submitted that there has been averment in the complaint that notice has been sent to the accused on 25.9.2007 under registered post on proper address and thereby under clause 27 of the General Clauses Act , it would be deemed that notice has been served upon the opposite party no.2 and thereby it cannot be said that no averment is there with respect to service of notice upon the complainant.