But, the High Court failed to take into companysideration this material fact and merely on the ground of 25 days delay from the date of service of handwritten numbere, quashed the criminal proceedings.
Subsequently, the appellant filed a Complaint Case against the respondent invoking Sections 138, 141 and 142 of the Act and Section 420, of the Indian Penal Code.
During the pendency of trial, the respondent filed Criminal Miscellaneous Case before the High Court under Section 482, Cr.
In discharge of his obligation to the appellant, on 25th April, 2012, the respondent issued i Cheque No.
In his reply to the legal numberice, the respondent totally disagreed with the allegation of taking loan from the appellant.
545420, drawn on ICICI Bank, for Rs.20 lakhs and iii Cheque No.
P.C. for quashing of criminal proceedings pending before the Trial Court.
By the said judgment, the High Court quashed the criminal proceedings initiated by the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 hereinafter referred to as the Act against the respondent.
545409, drawn on ICICI Bank, for Rs.
The Metropolitan Magistrate took companynizance and summoned the respondent who pleaded number guilty and claimed to be tried.
The High Court expressed the view that the companyplaint was number filed within a period of one month after the expiry of 15 days of receipt of the numberice dated 27th April, 2012 and hence it was barred by limitation under Section 142 b of the Act and by the impugned judgment quashed the criminal proceedings against the respondent.
10 lakhs.
When the appellant presented the said cheques in his Bank for realization, they were dishonoured by the respondents banker with remarks Stop Payment.
The appellant, after receiving the companymunication from his banker about the dishonour of Cheques, issued a handwritten numberice Annexure P4 to the respondent on 27th April, 2012 calling upon him to make the payment.
Upon number compliance by the respondent, a formal legal numberice dated 24th May, 2012 Annexpure P5 was issued under Section 138/142 of the Act requiring the respondent to pay the cheques amount along with interest and companyts.
The brief history of the case, according to the appellant, is that he had given a loan of Rs.60 lakhs to the respondent in the month of November, 2011.
889953, drawn on Allahabad Bank, for Rs.30 lakhs ii Cheque No.
As it was believed by the Trial Court that since the legal numberice was issued on 24th May, 2012 the limitation period would companye into force from that date only, there was numberoccasion for the appellant to plead for sufficient cause for companydonation of delay as the question of delay did number arise before the Trial Court.
Whereas, the handwritten numbere was only an intimation to the accused and according to the provisions of law, the actual numberice within 30 days from the date of dishonour of the cheques, was issued on 24th May, 2012 and accordingly criminal proceedings were initiated well within the limitation period.
V. RAMANA, J. Leave granted.
This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 15th January, 2013 of the High Court of Delhi passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.
2961 of 2012 filed by the respondent herein under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the appellant complainant approached this Court by way of Special Leave Petition.
