CRMC No. 330/2017 Page 1 of 4 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Pronounced on: 27.02.2026 Uploaded on : 02.03.2026 CRMC No. 330/2017 Arjun Gupta …..Petitioner Through: Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, Advocate Vs Jatinder Sharma .….Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER (27.02.2026) 01. The petitioner through the medium of the present petition has sought quashment of a complaint filed by the respondent against him alleging commission of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act which is stated to be pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Municipal Court), Jammu (hereinafter referred as ‘trial Magistrate’). 02. It appears that the respondent has filed a complaint against the petitioner before the learned trial Magistrate alleging therein that the petitioner had issued two cheques for an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- both dated 28.02.2015 drawn on J&K Bank, New University Campus Railway Road, Jammu in favour of the respondent in discharge of his liability towards the Serial No. 56 CRMC No. 330/2017 Page 2 of 4 respondent as he had advanced a loan to the petitioner for the purpose of running the business. It has been alleged that the aforesaid two cheques were deposited by the respondent with his banker but both these cheques were dishonoured by the Bank vide two separate Memos dated 18.05.2015. 03. The respondent/complainant has further alleged that the statutory notice dated 15.06.2015 came to be issued by him and the same was served upon the petitioner but despite this, he failed to discharge the liability. Accordingly, the impugned complaint came to be filed before the learned trial Magistrate. 04. The petitioner has challenged the impugned complaint and the proceedings emanating therefrom primarily on the ground that statutory notice of demand has been issued by the respondent/complainant after the stipulated time of thirty (30) days from the date of dishonour of the cheques which are subject matter of the complaint. 05. Nobody has been appearing in this case on behalf of the respondent, as such, the matter has been heard in ex- parte. 06. If we have a look at the provisions contained in clause (b) of proviso to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it lays down that a demand for payment of the amount of dishonoured cheque has to be made by the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within CRMC No. 330/2017 Page 3 of 4 thirty (30) days from the date of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid. 07. 07. In the present case, the record of the trial court would show that memo of dischonour in respect of both the cheques is dated 18.05.2015. The notice of demand issued by the respondent is dated 15.06.2015 but the postal receipt which has been annexed with the complaint would show that it has been posted on 19.06.2015. In the complaint, it has nowhere been pleaded by the respondent that he had received information about the dishonour of the cheque on a day after the date of the memos of dishonor of the cheques, therefore, it can safely be stated that the respondent/complainant came to know about the dishonour of the cheques on 18.05.2015 itself but the notice of demand has been issued by him only on 19.06.2015 which is thirty two (32) days after the receipt of information about the dishonour of the cheques. 08. An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not constituted unless the requirements of proviso to said provision as contained in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) are satisfied. In the instant case, the requirements of clause-(b) of proviso to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are not satisfied inasmuch as the respondent has not issued the notice of demand within thirty (30) days of date of receipt of information about the dishonour of the cheques. Thus, offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments CRMC No. 330/2017 Page 4 of 4 Act, is not made out against the respondent/petitioner herein. 09. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned complaint and the proceedings emanating therefrom deserves to be quashed and the same are quashed accordingly. 10. A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Magistrate. 11. Disposed of. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 27.02.2026 SUNIL Whether the order is speaking ? : Yes Whether the order is reportable ? : Yes