Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. This is how the matter has been placed before us.

4. It is not necessary to narrate the facts in detail. Suffice it to refer to factual matrix noted in the referral order which is as follows:

The appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against respondent No.1 Smt. Savitri Pandey in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Magistrate, Sonbhadra in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The respondent's case was that four cheques issued by the accused-respondent in his favour were dishonoured, when presented for encashment. A notice calling upon the respondent-drawer of the cheque to pay the amount covered by the cheques was issued and duly served upon the respondent as required under Section 138 (c) of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. No payment was, however, made by the accused till 7th October, 2008 when a complaint under Section 138 of the Act aforementioned was filed before the Magistrate. Significantly enough the notice in question having been served on 23rd September, 2008, the complaint presented on 7th October, 2008 was filed before expiry of the stipulated period of 15 days. The Magistrate all the same took cognizance of the offence on 14th October, 2008 and issued summons to the accused, who then assailed the said order in a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The High Court took the view that since the complaint had been filed within 15 days of the service of the notice the same was clearly premature and the order passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence on the basis of such a complaint is legally bad. The High Court accordingly quashed the complaint and the entire proceedings relating thereto in terms of its order impugned in the present appeal.
It was, thus, held by the Andhra Pradesh High Court that the Magistrate should not have acted upon a premature complaint which was not a complaint at all in the eye of law.

15. In Ashok Hegde6, the single Judge of the Karnataka High Court while dealing with the contention raised by the petitioner therein that the complainant has not given 15 days’ time to the petitioner as contemplated under Section 138(b) of the NI Act and the complaint was premature and should not have been entertained, the single Judge held, “….. from the above, it is clear that he received the notice back on 21.09.1989. Even accepting that the petitioner refused the notice on 20.09.1989, the respondent ought to have filed this complaint after the expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The date of issuance of notice cannot be taken into account…….. Therefore, the cause of action had not arisen to file the complaint against the petitioner and the complaint was premature…….”

20. After the decision of this Court in Narsingh Das Tapadia1, the Karnataka High Court in Arun Hegde[9] did not accept the contention of the accused that the complaint filed under Section 138 on 15th day of service of notice of demand was premature and as such not maintainable. Relying upon Narsingh Das Tapadia1, the single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in Arun Hegde9 held that if the complaint was found to be premature, it can await maturity or be returned to the complainant for filing later and its mere presentation at an earlier date need not necessarily render the complaint liable to be dismissed or confer any right upon the accused to absolve himself from the criminal liability for the offence committed.

26. The Allahabad High Court in Ganga Ram Singh[15] took the view that if the complaint was filed under Section 138 of the NI Act before expiry of 15 days of statutory notice, the concerned court should have waited and allowed the complainant to establish its case or cognizance should have been taken after the expiry of the stipulated period instead of dismissing the complaint outright as premature.

27. A single Judge of the Madras High Court, following Narsingh Das Tapadia1 held that though the complaint was preferred three days short of the time to be availed by the accused to settle the dues but since the Magistrate had taken cognizance of the complaint presented by the complainant after the 15 days time granted under the statutory notice to settle the amount due to complainant, the complaint cannot be quashed on the ground that it was filed prematurely.