Patna High Court
Aniket Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 25 February, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76684 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1619 Year-2023 Thana- SIWAN COMPLAINT CASE District-
Siwan
======================================================
Aniket Kumar, son of Arun Singh, Director of Harischandra Builder Private
Limited, having its office and R/o Maghari, P.S.- Bhagwanpur Hat, District
-Siwan Bihar. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Sanjeev Kumar, Son of Prabhunath Mishra, R/o - Maghari, P.S.-
Bhagwanpur Hat, District -Siwan, Bihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rakesh Mohan Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Pramod Kumar Pandey, APP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Mr. D.K. Sinha, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Alexander Ashok, Advocate
Ms. Shyama Rani, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 25-02-2025
1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
parties.
2. The present application has been filed for
quashing the cognizance order dated 12.10.2023 passed by
learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Siwan in connection with
Complaint Case No. 1619 of 2023, where cognizance was
taken for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act.
3. While arguing this matter, learned counsel
heavily relied upon the legal notice from wherein, it transpires
that the compliance of Section 138(b) of the Negotiable
Instrument Act, 1881 not appears to be followed as demand
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76684 of 2024 dt.25-02-2025
2/8
was not raised for the "said amount" i.e. the amount for
which the instrument under dispute was drawn by opposite
party no. 2. It is submitted that on this score alone, the entire
cognizance order is bad in eyes of law and same be fit to be
set aside/quashed. Besides the aforesaid main illegality, it is
submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that
there was dispute between the parties related with their
business and deed of partnership as executed between them
on 15.10.2019 was not complied with in its true spirit. It is
also submitted that the instrument in issue was issued by a
company i.e. M/s Harishchandra Builders Pvt. Ltd., a company
registered under Compaies Act, 2013 but said company was
not made an accused in this case. Notice appears issued to
petitioner in personal capacity. Learned counsel appearing for
petitioner relied upon the legal report of Hon'ble Supreme
Court as available through Upasana Mishra Vs. Trek
Technology India Pvt. Ltd. reported through 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1740.
4. Mr. D.K. Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing
for the opposite party no. 2 submitted that the firm of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76684 of 2024 dt.25-02-2025
3/8
opposite party no. 2 is a proprietorship firm and, therefore,
the notice was issued in personal capacity. It is pointed out
that the firm of petitioner is also a proprietorship firm. Mr.
Sinha Further submitted that the demand of Rs. 35 lacs was
out of total outstanding demand of Rs. 80,20,000/- and it
was so raised to protect the interest of opposite party no. 2 in
case of summary suit, if any initiated in future regarding
recovery of the aforesaid amount.
5. It would be apposite to reproduce the provision of
Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instrument Act, for the sake
of better understanding of the position of law.
"138. Dishonour of cheque for
insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.--
"Where any cheque drawn by a person on an
account maintained by him with a banker for payment
of any amount of money to another person from out of
that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of
any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank
unpaid, either because of the amount of money
standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to
honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount
arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement
made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to
have committed an offence and shall without prejudice
to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with
imprisonment for 1["a term which may extend to two
year"], or with fine which may extend to twice the
amount of the cheque, or with both:
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall
apply unless-
(a) The cheque has been presented to the bank within
a period of six months from the date on which it is
drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is
earlier.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76684 of 2024 dt.25-02-2025
4/8
(b) The payee or the holder in due course of the
cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the
payment of the said amount of money by giving a
notice, in writing, to the drawer, of the
cheque, 2["within thirty days"] of the receipt of
information by him from the bank regarding the return
of the cheques as unpaid"
(C)..............
6. To understand the factual position, it would be
apposite to reproduce the notice as issued by opposite party
no. 2 against petitioner for raising his demand of Rs. 35 lacs,
same is as :-
"izs'kd%& foosd dqekj
vf/koDrk
O;ogkj U;k;ky;] floku ¼fcgkj½
fiu dksM& 841226
}kjk%& latho dqekj
firk&Jh izHkqukFk feJk
xzke&e/kjh
Fkkuk&Hkxokuiqj gkV
ftyk& flokuA
izsf'kr%& vfudsr dqekj
oYn Jh v:.k flag
xzke&e/kjh
Fkkuk&Hkxokuiqj gkV
ftyk&floku
izksizkbVj&gfj"kpUnz foYMj izkbZosV fyfeVsM
ekStk&e/kjh] Fkkuk&Hkxokuiqj gkV]
ftyk&flokuA
jftLVªs"ku ua0&20AADCH5185K1ZL
MkYVsuxat ¼>kj[k.M½
pqWa esjs mijksDr eofDdy latho dqekj
us vkidks ;g odkyru uksfV"k Hkstus ds
fy, eq>s vf/kd`r fd;k gS%&
1- ;g fd esjs eqofDdy dk dguk gS fd esjs eqofDdy
vkSj vkids dEiuh gfj"kpUnz foYMj izkbosV fyfeVsM ds
ek/;e ls dyi=q ikoj VªkUleh"ku fyfeVsM MkYVsuxat
ls la;qDr :i ls fcfYMax fuekZ.k ds dke djus ds
fy, ,d fyf[kr djkj o'kZ 2019 esa gqvkA
2- ;g fd ml djkj ds vuqlkj dyi=q ikoj
VªkUleh"ku fyfeVsM MkYVsuxat ds vUrxZr gksus okys
dkeksa esa tks Hkh O;; gksxk og nksuksa Hkkxhnkj
cjkcj&cjkcj djsaxs vkSj lHkh dkjksckj gfj"kpUnz foYMj
izkbosV fyfeVsM ds uke ls gksxk ,oa dyi=q ikoj
VªkUleh"ku fyfeVsM MkYVsuxat ls tks Hkqxrku gksxk og
gfj"kpUnz foYMj izkbosV fyfeVsM ds [kkrs esa gh vk;sxk
ftlesa nksuks Hkkxhnkj dk cjkcj dk vf/kdkj gksxkA
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76684 of 2024 dt.25-02-2025
5/8
3- ;g fd esjs eqofDdy dk dguk gS fd dyi=q ikoj
VªkUleh"ku fyfeVsM }kjk jktgjk LVs"ku fcfYMax ,oa
bZ&dsfou dk dke "kq: gqvk vkSj 2021 esa lEiUu gks
x;kA ftldk Hkqxrku dyi=q ikoj VªkUleh"ku fyfeVsM
us LVs"ku fcfYMax dk fofHkUu frfFk;ksa esa dqy 11761136-
2 ¼,d djksM+ lrjg yk[k ,dlB gtkj ,d lkS Nrhl
:i;k nks iSlk½ ,oa b&dsfou dk Hkqxrku fofHkUu frfFk;ksa
esa dqy 5236188-21¼ckou yk[k Nrhl gtkj ,d lkS
vBklh :i;k bDdhl iSlk½ ;kuh dqy Hkqxrku
16997324-41 ¼,d djksM+ mugrj yk[k lurkuos gtkj
rhu lkS pkSchl :i;k ,drkyhl iSlk½ gjh"kpUnz fcYMj
izkbZosV fyfeVsM ds [kkrs esa fd;kA
4- ;g fd esjs eqofDdy dk dguk gS fd dyi=q ikoj
VªkUleh"ku fyfeVsM us tc&tc vkids dEiuh
gjh"kpUnz fcYMj izkbZosV fyfeVsM ds uke ij Hkqxrku
fd;k rc esjs eqofDdy ls fglkc djus dks dgk rc
vki ;g dg dj dh vHkh dke ckdh gS dke iqjk gks
tk;sxk rc fglkc gksxk Vky fn;k djrs FksA
5- ;g fd esjs eqofDdy us dke [kRe gks tkus ds ckn
vkils fglkc djus dh ckr dgh rks vki vkt&dy
dj Vky nsrs FksA bl ckr ij esjs eqfDdy dks cgqr
gSjkuh gksrh FkhA bl ckr dks tc esjs eqofDdy us vius
?kj okyksa ,oa xkao ds yksxksa ls dgk rc yksxksa ds dgus
ij vkius Hkkxhnkjh esa fd, dk;Z dk fglkc&fdrkc
fd;k ftlesa ls esjs eqofDdy dk ml fnu rd dk
fglkc 8020000@&¼vLlh yk[k chl gtkj :i;k½ dk
fglkc vk;k tks vkidks esjs eqofdy dks nsus FksA
6- ;g fd esjs eqofDdy dk dguk gS fd vkius ;g dg
dj dh vHkh iSlk ugha gS eSaus og iSlk dgh vkSj yxk
fn;k gS ckn esa nsaxs vkSj iSlk nsus ds fy, le; ekaxrs
jgsA esjk eqofDdy Hkh vkidh ckrksa ,oa >kalk esa vkdj
vkidks le; nsrk x;kA
7- ;g fd tc esjs eqofDdy dks iSlk dh vR;ar t:jr
iM+h rks og dqN yksxksa dks ysdj vkids ikl x;k vkSj
vkils vuqjks/k fd;k dh eq>s esjs fgLls dk iSlk ns
nhft, eq>s t:jr gSA rc vkius dqy rhu fdLrksa esa
dqy jde dks nsus dks Lohdkj fd;k rFkk igyk
fdLr&3500000@&¼iSarhl yk[k :i;k½ dks psd vkius
esjs eqofDdy dk fn;k vkSj ckdh fdLr nsus ds fy, ,d
le; fy;kA esjs eqofDdy us vkids ckrksa dks fo"okl
dj vkidks fQj le; fn;k vkSj vkids }kjk fn;k x;k
psd fnukad&11-05-2023 dks vius HDFC cSad [kkrs esa
tek fd;kA
8- ;g fd esjs eqofDdy dk dguk gS fd 12-05-2023 dks
HDFC cSad ds }kjk mldks lqpuk feyh dh mlds }
kjk Mkyk x;k psd QaM dh deh (Funds
Insufficient) ds dkj.k vekU; gks x;kA
9- ;g fd esjs eqofDdy us bldh lqpuk vkidks fn;k
rks vkius fQj ls ogha psd 3500000@& ¼iSarhl
yk[k :i;k½ dk Mkyus dks cksyk vkSj cksyk fd vc esjs
[kkrs esa iSlk gS vc vki fudky ldrs gSAa esjs eqofDdy
us vkids }kjk fn;k gqvk fnukad&26-06-2023 dk psd
vius HDFC ds [kkrs esa Mkyk vkSj og Hkh 27-06-2023
dks HDFC cSad ds }kjk QaM dh deh (Funds
Insufficient) dg dj vekU; dj fn;k x;kA
10- ;g fd esjs eqofDdy dk dguk gS fd vc vki uk
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76684 of 2024 dt.25-02-2025
6/8
gh feyrs gSa vkSj uk gh vktrd mlds fgLlk dk iSlk
ugha fn, vkSj tkucq>dj xyr psd nsdj jde gM+i
fy, gSA
11- ;g fd esjs eqofDdy dk dguk gS fd vkids
O;ogkj ls ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd vki mldk dqy
jde eks0 8020000@& ¼vLlh yk[k chl gtkj½ :Ik;k
gM+Ik tkuk pkgrs gSa tks ljklj /kks[kk/kM+h ,oa vekur esa
[;kur gS vkSj vkids dEiuh ds lkFk gq, djkj ,oa
"krksZa ds foijhr Hkh gSA
vr% ctfj;s bl odkyru uksfVl vkidks
vkxkg fd;k tkrk gS fd vki bl uksfVl ds 15 fnuksa
ds vUnj esjs eqofDdy dh dqy jde eks0&
8020000@& ¼vLlh yk[k chl gtkj :i;k½ dk lqn
lfgr ,d eqLr Hkqxrku dj nsos vU;Fkk ck/; gksdj esjs
eqofDdy dks U;k; gsrq U;k;ky; dh "kj.k esa tkuk
iMs+xk ftlls leLr [kpsZ dh tokcnsgh vkidh gksxhA
bls l[r rkdhn le>sA
bl odkyru uksfVl dh ,d izfr lkFk
odkyrukek ,oa leLr dkxtkr esjs dk;kZy; esa vfxze
dk;Zokgh gsrq lqjf{kr j[kk tkrk gSA
Hkonh;
g0@&
foosd dqekj
vf/koDrk
O;ogkj U;k;ky;
flokuA"
7. It would be further apposite to reproduce the
para nos. 7 and 8 of the Upasana Mishra' case (supra).
"7. The last paragraph in Annexure-P2
notice carries the demand and we will refer to
the demand made thereunder. It read, thus:
"9. ...............................................
......................................................... I, therefore
through this legal notice call upon you to make
the party of the doubt amount of the cheque
i.e. Rs. 6,50,000/- (Rs. Six Lakh Fifty
Thousand Only) with interest @12% per
annum since 12.11.2013 and further pay the
damaged at Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand
Only) per month within stipulated period from
the receipt of this notice failing which I have
clear instructions from my aforesaid clients to
take legal action against you in the competent
courts, holding you responsible for entire cost
and consequences with litigation charges of Rs.
5,500/- (Rs. Five Thousand Five Hundred
Only) as charges of this notice. Copy of this
kept for further reference." (Emphasis added)
8. A scanning of Annexure-P2 notice
would reveal that an omnibus demand for Rs.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76684 of 2024 dt.25-02-2025
7/8
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."
8. It appears from the notice dated 26.07.2023, as
issued by opposite party no. 2, against petitioner that it
nowhere suggest that any demand qua Rs. 35 lacs, which is
the amount of dishonoured instrument as drawn on Bank of
Baroda dated 11.05.2023 bearing no. 00154 was raised.
Notice is even silent regarding any description of instrument
which is the subject matter of present proceedings.
9. From the bare perusal of para-11 of the notice
(running from page 32 to 35), it transpires that the demand
was raised for Rs. 80, 20,000/- with interest, which is not the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76684 of 2024 dt.25-02-2025
"said amount" in terms of Section 138(b) of the Negotiable
Instrument Act as discussed above. This case further appears
fully covered by the ratio as available to this Court thorough
Upasana Mishra Case (supra), accordingly, impugned
order of cognizance dated 12.10.2023 passed by learned
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Siwan in connection with
Complaint Case No. 1619 of 2023, is hereby set aside and
quashed qua petitioner with all its consequential proceedings.
10. Let copy of this order be sent to the trial court,
without delay.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
veena/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 27.02.2025
Transmission Date 27.02.2025
