In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court, presided over by Justice Anish Kumar Gupta, dismissed an application seeking the quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The case, titled Dinesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another (Application U/S 482 No. 20471 of 2024), dealt with the issue of whether the complaint filed by the respondent, Rajveer Singh, was within the permissible time frame as provided under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Background of the Case:
The applicant, Dinesh Kumar, filed the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1397 of 2021, initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The dispute arose after two cheques, allegedly issued by Dinesh Kumar on October 18 and 20, 2020, were presented for encashment by Rajveer Singh on January 21, 2021. The cheques were dishonored on January 22, 2021, with the remark “payment stopped by the drawer.”
Following this, Rajveer Singh issued a legal demand notice to Dinesh Kumar on February 18, 2021, which was served on February 19, 2021. The complaint was subsequently filed on April 2, 2021.
Legal Issues and Arguments:
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the complaint filed by Rajveer Singh was time-barred. The applicant’s counsel, Mr. Man Mohan Singh, argued that the complaint was filed beyond the one-month period prescribed under Section 142(1)(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He relied on a previous judgment by a Coordinate Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Mamta Gautam vs. State of U.P. (Criminal Revision No. 530 of 1998), which held that the complaint must be filed within one month from the date of service of the legal demand notice.
On the other hand, the Additional Government Advocate, Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, representing the State, contended that the period for filing the complaint does not start from the date of service of the notice but from the date when the cause of action arises, which is 15 days after the service of the demand notice. According to him, in this case, the cause of action arose on March 7, 2021, and thus the complaint filed on April 2, 2021, was within the limitation period.
Court’s Observations and Decision:
Justice Anish Kumar Gupta, after hearing the arguments from both sides, observed that Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act mandates that a complaint can be filed only after the cause of action arises, which is 15 days after the service of the demand notice. Quoting from the judgment, the court stated, “The cause of action for filing the complaint would arise only after the expiry of 15 days from the date of service of the demand notice on the drawer of the cheque.”
The court further clarified the correct interpretation of the law, holding that the earlier decision in Mamta Gautam was “per incuriam” (decided without considering the relevant legal provisions) as it did not appropriately consider the language of Section 142(1)(b). The court explained that the one-month period for filing the complaint starts only after the cause of action arises under clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138.
Concluding that the complaint by Rajveer Singh was indeed filed within the permissible time frame, Justice Gupta dismissed the application by Dinesh Kumar, stating, “The instant application lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.”
Case Details:
– Case Title: Dinesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another
– Case Number: Application U/S 482 No. 20471 of 2024
– Bench: Justice Anish Kumar Gupta
– Applicant’s Counsel: Man Mohan Singh
– Respondent’s Counsel: Rajeev Kumar Singh (Additional Government Advocate)
