Orissa High Court
M/S. M.K. Bhoomi Infra vs State Of Odisha & Another .... Opp. ... on 5 March, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.31 of 2025
M/s. M.K. Bhoomi Infra .... Petitioner
Private Limited,
Bhubaneswar Mr. Santanu
Kumar Sarangi,
Senior Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & another .... Opp. Parties
Mr.S.J.Mohanty,
ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Order ORDER
No. 05.03.2025
04. 1. The petitioner is seeking quashing of the entire
complaint being ICC Case No.3117 of 2023 initiated
by the opposite party No.2 against him for the alleged
commission of the offence punishable under Section
138 of the N.I. Act.
2. Mr. S.K. Sarangi, learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the petitioner submits that the opposite
party No.2 has issued the statutory notice under
Section 138(b) of the N.I. Act submits that the
operative paragraph of the demand notice is not clear
as to which cheque was dishonoured and what is the
demand made by the opposite party No.2. He has
emphatically read out the last paragraph of the
notice that reads as under:
"It is therefore, request you to make payment of
Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakh) and
Rs.15,65,000/- along with Rs.3,50,000/- taken as
hand loan, in total of Rs.59,15,000/- with an
interest @ 24% p.a. along with cost and expenses to
my client at an earliest on or before 15 days after
receipt of this notice, otherwise my client shall have
no alternatives to take shelter in the proper court of
law to recover his dues from you with interest and
Rs.900 towards bank charges along with litigation
Expenses/charges of Rs.10,000 from you & for
that you will be held liable to make payment of
same."
3. Relying upon the aforementioned contention of
the statutory notice, he submits that since the notice
is defective, the entire complaint case is vitiated. To
substantiate his stand, he has relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Upasana Mishra vs. Trek Technology India Pvt.
Ltd. in SLP (Crl.) No.9062 of 2023. He has relied
upon paragraph-8 of the said judgment, which reads
thus:
"8. A scanning of Annexure-P2 notice would
reveal that an omnibus demand for
Rs.6,50,000/- was made in addition to the
demand for interest @12 per annum since
12.11.2013, the date of returning of the cheque,
Rs.50,000/- towards damages and Rs.5,500/-
as notice charge. The demand is omnibus as
relates the amount of Rs.6,50,000/- as
admittedly, it is not the cheque amount and in
addition under Annexure P-2-notice, interest
@12% per annum from 12.11.2013, damages at
Rs.50,000/- per month and Rs.5,500/- as notice
charge were also demanded. Such
circumstances discernible from the demand
notice on application of the law laid by this Court
in the case of Suman Sethi (supra), would make
Annexure-P2 notice of demand invalid. Hence,
we are of the view that the impugned order
invites interference. In that view of the matter,
the Appeal stands allowed. Consequently, the
impugned order dated 13.04.2023 passed by the
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in CRMC
No.2528/2023 stands set aside and as a
necessary sequel, the summoning order dated
19.01.2016 passed by the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate, NI Act 02, South East, Saket Courts,
New Delhi shall also stand quashed."
4. Issue notice.
5. Mr. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing
Counsel appearing for the opposite party No.1-State
waives the notice.
6. Issue notice to the opposite party No.2 by
Registered Post with A.D./Speed Post with A.D.
Requisites shall be filed by tomorrow.
7. List this matter on 25.03.2025.
8. In the meantime, the petitioner is granted liberty
to move appropriate application before the trial Court
seeking adjournment in the matter owing to the fact
that the present matter is pending subjudice before
this Court. If such application is moved by the
petitioner before the trial Court, the same shall be
considered.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Digitally Signed Subhasis
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 07-Mar-2025 17:03:51
