HC Wrongly Deemed the Cheque Bounce Complaint Premature, Despite It Being Filed Within a Month of the Legal Notice Reply

Case Details: Vijay Veer Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh - [2024] 167 taxmann.com 753 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Mrs. B.V. Nagarathna & Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.
• Roopansh Purohit, AOR, Harsh Panwar & Ms Kavita Bhardwaj, Advs. for the Petitioner.
• Vikas Bansal, Adv., Rajat Singh, AOR, Ms Shweta Yadav, Sarthak Chandra, Advs., Satish Pandey, AOR, Ms Jay Jaimini Pandey, Ms Ritika Singh & Raj Narayan Singh, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, a cheque issued by the accused for a sum of Rs. 16.50 lakh was dishonoured. Consequently, the complainant was issued a legal notice. Since no payment was made, the complainant filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The Judicial Magistrate took cognizance under section 138 of the Act and passed the summoning order. The summoning order was assailed by filing an application under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. before the High Court. By the impugned order, the High Court allowed the said application and quashed the summoning order. Hence, an appeal was made before the Supreme Court.

It was noted that the cause of action for the complainant to maintain a complaint arises when, within fifteen days from receipt of notice issued by the complainant, no payment is made of the amount stated in the cheque that has been dishonoured.

On the said cause of action arising, a complaint would be maintainable within a period of one month as per Section 142(1)(b) of the Act. In the instant case, a legal notice was issued on 30.09.2019, which was received by the accused on 01.10.2019, but a reply was given on 16.10.2019. There was no payment of the amount stated in the cheque, which was dishonoured.

Consequently, within a period of one month from 16.10.2019, the appellant had the right to maintain a complaint. In the instant case, the complaint was filed on 23.10.2019, which was within the period of limitation as prescribed in Section 142(1)(b) of the Act.

Therefore, the High Court made an error in holding that the complaint was premature by construing the date 16.10.2019, on which the reply was sent by the accused, as the date from which the one-month limitation period had to be calculated.

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court held that the instant appeal was to be allowed, the impugned order passed by the High Court was to be set aside, and the summoning order was to be revived.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Order of High Court in APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 29097 of 2023 dated 21.08.23 [2024] 167 taxmann.com 657 (All.) (Para 11) reversed