Madhya Pradesh High Court
Surjeet Singh Bhadoriya vs Gwalior Distlari @ Gwalior Alkobru Pvt. ... on 18 September, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22944
1 MCRC-32291-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 18th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 32291 of 2025
SURJEET SINGH BHADORIYA
Versus
GWALIOR DISTLARI @ GWALIOR ALKOBRU PVT. LTD. DWARA
MANAGER GOVIND SINGH RAJPUT
Appearance:
Dr. Jitendra Singh Kushwah - Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (528 of B.N.S.S.) has been
filed by the petitioner against the order dated 12.07.2025 passed by the Court
of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhind, M.P. in Case No. 56/2018 under
N.I. Act, whereby the objection (application) filed by the petitioner was
rejected.
2. The brief facts, in nutshell, are that the respondent/complainant
instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the present
petitioner, which is pending consideration before the trial Court. During
pendency of the said proceedings, the petitioner submitted an objection
seeking dismissal of the complaint primarily on the ground that the notice
was never duly served upon him and that the delivery report produced by the
complainant only shows delivery up to the post office and not actual service.
It was further contended that the complaint was not maintainable for want of
service of statutory notice as well as timely filing of affidavit under Section
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22944
2 MCRC-32291-2025
145 of the N.I. Act. The said objection was rejected by order dated
12.07.2025.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order
dated 12.07.2025 is contrary to law and is liable to be set aside. The delivery
report of the demand notice filed by the complainant along with the
complaint merely reflects delivery up to the post office and does not
establish actual service upon the accused; hence, in absence of due service of
notice, registration of offence is not sustainable in law.
4. It is further submitted that in absence of service of notice and timely
filing of affidavit under Section 145 of the N.I. Act, coupled with the fact
that the complaint is supported by a false delivery report, the complaint itself
is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. To bolster
his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case
of Mohammed Abdul Wahid Vs. Nilofer and Anr. reported in (2024) 2 SCC
144 .
5. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
6. The objection raised by the petitioner relates to service of statutory
notice. It is trite law that whether notice under Section 138(b) of the N.I. Act
was duly served is essentially a mixed question of law and fact, which can be
examined during trial on the basis of evidence adduced by both sides. At the
stage of taking cognizance and issuance of process, the Court is only
required to prima facie satisfy itself about the existence of ingredients of the
offence. Non-service or defective service of notice is not a ground for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22944
3 MCRC-32291-2025
quashment of proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. once the complainant
has produced material showing dispatch of notice at the correct address.
7. So far as reliance placed on Mohammed Abdul Wahid (supra) is
concerned, the said judgment was rendered on different factual
background, therefore, the ratio of that case is not attracted to the facts of the
present matter.
8. On overall consideration, this Court does not find any illegality,
irregularity, or perversity in the order passed by the learned trial Court
rejecting the petitioner's objection. No case is made out warranting
interference in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
9. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
