Orissa High Court: R K Pattnaik, J. dismissed the petition and held that the ground on which the petition is raised is misconceived and therefore, cannot be sustained.
The facts of the case are such that the petitioner is an accused in a complaint case filed by OP 1 pending before the court below for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ( ‘the NI Act’) alleging therein that the former had taken a hand loan of Rs.40,000/- to meet his personal needs and when it could be paid back, some henchmen of OP 1 forcibly entered inside his residence and managed to obtain a cheque for an amount of Rs.40,000/- drawn in the UCO Bank, Khurda Branch, Khurda and thereafter, presented it before the bank for encashment but it could not be honored for insufficient funds in the account and again after five months, it was again submitted and yet dishonored with a similar endorsement dated 18th October, 2010. The cognizance was taken and now it is raised for dispute that court below could not have taken cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act after it was presented for encashment once again after about five months which is not permitted under law. Hence the petitioner assailed the legality and judicial propriety of order of cognizance and invoked jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C on the grounds inter alia that it is not sustainable in law and therefore, liable to be quashed.
The issue that came for consideration is that the question is, whether on the basis of a statutory notice issued by OP 1 subsequent to dishonor of cheque about five months before, the learned court below could have entertained the complaint and taken cognizance of offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act as against the petitioner?
The Court relied on Sadanandan Bhadran v. Madhavan Sunil Kumar, (1998) 6 SCC 514 and observed that to the extent that second and successive presentation of a cheque is legally permissible as long as it is within six months or validity of the cheque, whichever is earlier.
The Court reiterated that a prosecution based on a second or successive default in payment of the cheque amount should not be impermissible simply because no prosecution based on the first default which was followed by statutory notice and a failure to pay had not been launched. Hence no real or qualitative difference exists between a case where default is committed and prosecution immediately launched and another, where the prosecution is deferred till the cheque presented again gets dishonored for the second or successive time.
With regard to the purport of NI Act the Court observed that if the entire purpose underlined Section 138 of the N.I. Act is to compel the drawers to honor their commitments made in course of business or other transactions, there is no reason why a person who has issued a cheque which is dishonored and who failed to make payment despite statutory notice served upon him should be immune to prosecution simply because the holder of the cheque had not rushed to the court with a complaint based on such default or for the reason that the drawer has made the holder defer prosecution promising to make arrangements for funds or on account of any other similar situation.
The Court concluded after perusing various judgments on the similar point of law that such a criminal action on a subsequent statutory notice or a notice sent for the first time after dishonor of cheque previously for which prosecution was not launched on the promise of the accused to make arrangement for funds, a complaint cannot be held as not maintainable.
The Court thus observed that in the present case OP 1 did not send any statutory notice after the cheque was dishonored in the month of May, 2010 but once again presented it within the validity period of the cheque and thereafter, issued the statutory notice as required under law and under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the complaint is invalid.
The Court thus held “the contention of the petitioner vis-à-vis maintainability of the complaint on the ground raised is misconceived and therefore, cannot be sustained.”
[Gadadhar Barik v. Pradeep Kumar Jena, 2022 SCC OnLine Ori 1052, decided on 07-04-2022]
For Petitioner- Mr. A. Pattanaik
For Opposite Parties- Mr. D.R. Parida