Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. In this backdrop, it is submitted that the cause of action never arose in the instant case as required by the relevant provisions under the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred as NI Act). Accordingly, the learned counsel representing the petitioner side contends and submits that the case of the complainant/respondent suffers from lack of cause of action and fatal errors and hence, the prosecution in its entirety should be set aside and quashed.

8. Heard Ms. N. Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent/ complainant. The respondent complainant submits through her learned counsel that the petitioner and the complainant are relatives and acquaintances and the surname Laskar happens to be their family name, which was also written by the petitioner but subsequently, he dropped that family name Laskar. It is contended that the petitioner has not denied issuance of the cheque and the cheque number is also not in dispute. It is further contended that the apparent error in the middle name of the petitioner's father is a typographical error; that the account number given in the notice also suffered from a typographical error and that the correct account number finds mention in the initial deposition by way of evidence of affidavit. It is also contended that as the petitioner had changed his Page No.# 4/12 name, dropping the family name Laskar, the notice was issued in the name of Anamul Haque Laskar and that the same can also be taken as a typographical error.

9. Relying on a decision which will be gone into later, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that an error of the account number in the legal notice would not be a fatal error as contended by the petitioner side and that riding on the back of the supposed typographical errors, the petitioner should not be allowed to evade and escape from the criminal prosecution, where the respondent/complainant is genuinely aggrieved by the bouncing of the cheque of value Rs. 3 (three) lakhs.

10. The scanned copy of the trial court records till the present stage has been received and I have perused the relevant portions thereof.

11. I have perused the criminal petition, the complaint before the learned court below and other relevant materials. I have also perused the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent/complainant narrating about the supposed typographical errors as referred above. I have also considered the rival submissions and the case laws submitted.

12. The said cheque copy indicates the date as 08.12.2022; the cheque number is mentioned as 249837; amount is mentioned as Rs. 3 (three) lakhs; the name of the bearer of the cheque is mentioned as Anamul Haque; the account number is mentioned as State bank of India 20083697005. The return memo dated 09.12.2022 i.e. on the very next day, issued by the State bank of India indicates the amount as Rs. 3 (three) lakhs and the reason of return stated as insufficiency of funds. These two documents have been mentioned as exhibited documents as Page No.# 5/12 part of the evidence on affidavit of the complainant as DW-1.

At the cost of repetition, the original cheque was placed before the trial court and the same was exhibited. The cheque as well as the signature has been accepted by the petitioner. Thus, the presumption under Section 139 would operate and the wrong number of the cheque in the complaint and/or in the legal notice would not make any difference and has to be taken as typographical error."

Page No.# 10/12