Rounak Shukla @ Raunak Shukla vs The State Of Jharkhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 766 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Rounak Shukla @ Raunak Shukla vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 February, 2026

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                                                  ( 2026:JHHC:3071 )



        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         Cr.M.P. No. 2214 of 2023
                                    ------

Rounak Shukla @ Raunak Shukla, aged about 35 years, son of Late S.P. Shukla, resident of Flat No. A/11, Shankhdeep Apartment, New Baradwari Bagan Area, Near Telephone Exchange, P.O. Sakchi, P.S. Sitaramdera, Town Jamshedpur, District- Singhbhum East, Jharkhand. ... Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. M/s Jai Sai Nath Engineering (P) Ltd., Represented through its Director Pankaj Tiwari, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Tiwari Sadan 250, Kashidih, Sakchi, P.O. & P.S. Sakchi, Town Jamshedpur, District- Singhbhum East Jharkhand, 831001

3. Mr. Pankaj Tiwari son of late S.N. Tiwari, Director of M/s Jai Sai Nath Engineering (P) Ltd., resident of 250, Kashidih, Sakchi, P.O. & P.S. Sakchi, Town Jamshedpur, District- Singhbhum East, Jharkhand, 831001 ... Opposite Parties

------

            For the Petitioner     : Mr. Chandrajit Mukherjee, Advocate
                                     Mr. Preetam Mandal, Advocate
            For the State          : Ms. Kumari Rashmi, Addl.P.P.

For the O.P. Nos. 2&3 : Mr. Hemant Kr. Sikarwar, Advocate

------

PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking

the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. with

the prayer to quash order dated 23.05.2023 passed in Criminal

( 2026:JHHC:3071 )

Revision No. 315 of 2022 whereby and whereunder the learned

Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur dismissed the revision

application and affirmed the order dated 14.12.2022 passed in C/1

Case No. 7617 of 2022 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,

Jamshedpur whereby and whereunder the learned Judicial

Magistrate dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner as not

maintainable.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner being the

complainant filed C/1 Case No. 7617 of 2022 alleging commission of

the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act by the Opposite

Party Nos. 2 & 3 of this Cr.M.P. It is the case of the complainant that

the Opposite Party Nos. 2 & 3 issued three different post-dated

cheques to the petitioner-complainant and the said cheques being

presented to the bank, the same were dishonoured due to payment

stopped instruction given by drawer to their banker. The

complainant sent legal notice through an advocate on 21.11.2022

through speed post. Notice was received by the accused on

23.11.2022, but the Opposite Party Nos. 2 & 3 did not reply to the

notice. The learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur

considered that as per the tracking report of the notice sent to the

Opposite Party Nos. 2 & 3, the item was not exactly delivered to the

address of the accused, as though as per the notice, address of the

accused was in Kashidih, the tracking report showed that the

delivery confirmed on 23.11.2022 at Jamshedpur H.O. shows that

( 2026:JHHC:3071 )

delivery not confirmed to the mentioned address of the accused and

because of improper delivery of the notice the complaint was not

maintainable and dismissed the same.

4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 14.12.2022 passed by the

learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in C/1 Case No.

7617 of 2022, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision No. 315 of 2022

in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum,

Jamshedpur. The learned Sessions Judge after going through the

Trial Court Record found that the admitted fact of the complainant

is that the demand notice dated 21.11.2022 was sent to M/s Jai Sai

Nath Engineering (P) Ltd., and its director Pankaj Tiwari, at Tiwari

Sadan 250, Kashidih, Sakchi, but the address of the Opposite Party

Nos. 2 & 3 is at Bengonia Block No. 43, Flat No. 4372, Vijaya Garden,

Baridih, Club House, Baridih Colony, East Singhbhum, Jharkhand,

831017 and thus, there was no valid service of notice, demanding

payment of the cheque amount upon the Opposite Party Nos. 2 & 3

which is a pre-condition to be fulfilled before filing of the complaint.

Having not complied with demanded to the condition of demanding

the cheque amount, there was no valid cause of action for filing the

complaint, and as, the same having been rightly dismissed by the

learned JMFC, Jamshedpur for being not maintainable, the learned

Sessions Judge dismissed the criminal revision as well.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of

( 2026:JHHC:3071 )

K. Bhaskaran V. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan reported in AIR 1999

SC 3762 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that

the basic ingredients to fulfil under section 138 are as under: -

"The offence under Section 138 of the Act can be completed only with the concatenation of a number of acts. Following are the acts which are components of the said offence: (1) Drawing of the cheque, (2) Presentation of the cheque to the bank, (3) Returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank, (4) Giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount, (5) failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice." (Emphasis supplied)

And submits that the plea of non-delivery of legal notice in

the address mentioned in the cause title of the complaint petition

would not be available to the Opposite Party Nos. 2 & 3 for the

reason that they have appeared not only before the Court of learned

Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur as well as in the court,

on service of notice of same address as mentioned in the complaint

petition and in the legal notice. Moreover, the petitioner and the

accused were known to each other before, being relatives which has

been mentioned in the complaint petition. There was no doubt in

having sent the legal notice to the correct and proper address.

Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Cr.M.P.

be allowed.

6. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned

counsel for the Opposite Party Nos. 2 & 3 vehemently oppose the

prayer and draw attention of this Court to Page-19 of the brief,

which is the admitted document of the petitioner that as per the

( 2026:JHHC:3071 )

same the letter was delivered to one Smita who is the wife of Binod

whereas the notice was issued to Pankaj Tiwari and M/s Jai Sai

Nath Engineering (P) Ltd. It is then submitted that admittedly, the

notice demanding the payment of the cheque amount was never

served upon Pankaj Tiwari or M/s Jai Sai Nath Engineering (P) Ltd..

Hence, it is submitted that as the fourth basic ingredient required to

be fulfilled in a complaint under section 138 of N.I. Act; as has been

held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K.

Bhaskaran V. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan (supra), having not been

fulfilled, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly dismissed the

Criminal Revision; as for the same reason learned Magistrate also

dismissed the complaint. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P.

without having any merit be dismissed.

7. Having heard the submissions made in the Bar and after

going through the materials on record, this Court is satisfied from

Page-19 of the Cr.M.P. filed by the petitioner, which is the admitted

document of the petitioner that though admittedly, the notice

demanding payment of the cheque amount was issued to Pankaj

Tiwari and M/s Jai Sai Nath Engineering (P) Ltd., the same were

neither served upon Pankaj Tiwari nor served upon M/s Jai Sai

Nath Engineering (P) Ltd., because undisputedly the notice was

received by one Smita who is wife of Binod. There is no material in

the record to suggest that Smita who received the notice is anyway

related to M/s Jai Sai Nath Engineering (P) Ltd. in any capacity nor

( 2026:JHHC:3071 )

there is any material to suggest that Smita is anyway related to

Pankaj Tiwari and M/s Jai Sai Nath Engineering (P) Ltd. In the

absence of the same, certainly the notice served upon one Smita,

who is the wife of Binod, though the same was addressed to Pankaj

Tiwari and M/s Jai Sai Nath Engineering (P) Ltd. respectively

cannot be said to be a valid service of notice demanding payment of

the cheque amount and in the absence of the same certainly, the

question of failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of

the receipt of the notice does not arise and in the absence of the same

this Court do not find any illegality in the order dated 23.05.2023

passed by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur

in not allowing the Criminal Revision and dismissing the same,

which revision was directed against the order dated 14.12.2022

passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being

without any merit is dismissed.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 5th February, 2026 AFR/ Vedanti

Uploaded on 09/02/2026