[2025:RJ-JP:46156] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1837/2019 Naresh Chelani S/o Late Shri Basant Lal Chelani, R/o Plot No.23, Sindhi Colony, Shanti Path, Raja Park, Jaipur, Raj. ----Accused-Petitioner Versus Pavan Bhatia S/o Late Shri Manohar Lal Bhatia, R/o Plot No.B- 29, Flat No.801, White Saffaire, Govind Marg, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur, Raj. ----Complainant-Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Yadav with Mr. Mahendra Verma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PP Mr. Amit Puri HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 17/11/2025 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 09.07.2018 passed by Special Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No. 15, Jaipur Metropolitan whereby, the learned Trial Court has dismissed the application under Section 138(b) filed by the accused-petitioner wherein, it was objected that as per Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, drawee of the cheque is required to make demand by way of giving notice within a period of 30 days from the date of dishonour of the cheque. In the instant case, the complainant received information with regard to dishonour of the cheque on 06.05.2016 whereas, the notice was issued on 06.06.2016 irrespective of the fact that the 30 days expired on 05.06.2016 itself. Hence, in view of Section 138(b), no [2025:RJ-JP:46156] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-1837/2019] legal cause of action has arisen and the complaint could not have been entertained by the learned Court below. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that instead of deciding this issue on merits, the application has been rejected by the learned trial Court by giving the finding that as the petitioner did not raise this point at earlier stages, now, when the trial has proceeded further, no such application could have been moved by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the question with regard to issuance of legal notice within a period of 30 days goes to the root of the matter and can be considered by the Court at any point of time during trial. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant opposed the petition and submitted that the order dated 09.07.2018 has been passed by the learned Court below after meticulously examining the material on record as well as law prevailing at the relevant time, and there is no material irregularity or perversity in the impugned order. Since, there was Sunday on 05.06.2016, therefore that day would be not taken into consideration for computing limitation of 30 days, hence, cheque issued on 06.06.2016 was well within the prescribed limitation. Hence, the petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard the rival contentions of counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. It has not been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the cognizance taken by the learned Court below as well as the order of framing of charge has not been challenged by the petitioner whereas, the date of issuance of notice was very [2025:RJ-JP:46156] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-1837/2019] well mentioned in the complaint itself supported by the documents in this regard. Thus, in case, the petitioner was aggrieved either by taking of cognizance by the learned trial Court or by framing of charge against the provisions of the Act of 1881, he had opportunity to do so but instead of challenging the issue at the relevant time, the application filed by the petitioner at the stage when the matter was fixed for cross-examination of complainant is nothing but an afterthought. Hence, the discretion has rightly been exercised by the learned Court below in not entertaining the application at that stage. 7. I do not find any material irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the learned Court below, however, the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise this point at the time of final arguments on the complaint. 8. In view of above, the criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J Neeru/49