- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4178 CRL.P No. 103859 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103859 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. PERFECT LASERCUT AND FAB (INDIA) PVT LTD., REP. BY MR. VRASHABH KOROLE, SITUATED AT PLOT NO. 163, BELUR INDUSTRIAL AREA, DHARWAD. 2. MR. VRASHABH KAROLE, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: DIRECTOR, R/O: NO. 2 PAVAN PARK, GOA ROAD, SADHANAKERI, DHARWAD – 580 008. 3. MR. MANOJ V. BHATTAD, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: DIRECTOR, FLAT NO. 2C 41, KALPATARU GARDENS, ASHOK CHAKRAVARTHY ROAD, KANDIVILI (EAST) – 400 101, MUMBAI. 4. MRS. SONAL MANOJ BHATTAD, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: DIRECTOR, FLAT NO. 2C 41, KALPATARU GARDENS, ASHOK CHAKRAVARTHY ROAD, KANDIVILI (EAST) – 400 101, MUMBAI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI JAYANT R. ITAGI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI VENKATESH M. KHARVI, ADVOCATE) AND: VIMALA INDERCHAND JAIN REPRESENTED BY SPA HOLDER VIMALKUMAR Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4178 CRL.P No. 103859 of 2023 S/O. UMEDMALJI SAKARIYA, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: 51, ARIHANT HOUSING CO. OP. SOCIETY, KUSUGAL ROAD, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI – 5800 23, KARNATAKA. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI NIKHIL PATIL, SMT. SHRADDHA MOMAYA, SMT. DEEPALI KHONA, SRI IRFAN ANNIGERI AND SRI KHAWAJA HUSSAIN, ADVOCATES) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION AND QUASH THE COGNIZANCE TAKEN DATED 23.12.2022 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUBBALLI IN CC NO.8591/2022 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT AND FURTHER ISSUANCE OF PROCESS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/A-1 TO A-4 IN THIS CASE VIDE ANNEXURE-A. TO GRANT COSTS AND SUCH OTHER RELIEF/S AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT TO THE PETITIONERS, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ABOVE CASE, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by accused Nos.1 to 4 praying to quash the order of cognizance dated 23.12.2022 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi, in C.C. No.8591/2022 for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NI Act’, for short) and - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4178 CRL.P No. 103859 of 2023 issuance of process against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4. 2. The respondent initiated proceedings against the petitioners for an offence under Section 138 of NI Act. On the complaint filed by the respondent, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners by order dated 23.12.2022 for an offence under Section 138 of NI Act and registered C.C. No.8591/2022 for the said offence. The said order of cognizance and registration of criminal case has been challenged by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 in this petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the cheque dated 08.08.2022 said to have been issued by the petitioners to the respondent for a sum of Rs.33,60,000/- has been presented for encashment and it came to be dishonoured and dishonouring intimation has - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4178 CRL.P No. 103859 of 2023 been issued on 16.08.2022. He submits that the respondent got issued a legal notice dated 16.09.2022 to the petitioners intimating dishonour of cheque and demanding payment of cheque amount. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said notice issued dated 16.09.2022 is not within 30 days as required under Section 138(b) of NI Act. He submits that even if the date of intimation of dishonour i.e. 16.08.2022 is excluded then also the notice issued on 16.09.2022 does not come within 30 days as required under Section 138(b) of NI Act. On that point, he placed reliance on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Deepak Nagar vs. State and another1. On these grounds, he submits that the complaint is not maintainable. He submits that the learned Magistrate ought to have dismissed the complaint on that ground itself. With this, he prayed for allowing the petition. 1 CRL.M.C.1302/2023, CRL.M.A.4999/2023 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4178 CRL.P No. 103859 of 2023 5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the parties might have settled the matter and he has to secure information regarding, whether the matter is settled or not. The learned counsel, in spite of giving an opportunity to argue the matter, has not chosen to argue the matter on merits. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Court has perused the impugned order and other materials placed on record. The cheque said to have issued by the petitioners dated 08.08.2022 in favour of the respondent for Rs.33,60,000/- has been presented for encashment and it has been dishonoured with reason “Kindly contact drawee/drawee bank and present again” by intimation dated 16.08.2022. After receipt of intimation of dishonour on 16.08.2022, the respondent has got issued a legal notice to the petitioners dated 16.09.2022 intimating dishonour of cheque and calling upon the petitioners to pay the cheque amount. In para 8 of the said legal notice, it is stated that dishonour of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4178 CRL.P No. 103859 of 2023 cheque has been communicated to the respondent through the bankers cheque return memo dated 16.08.2022. In para 7 of the complaint also it is stated that the dishonour has been communicated to the respondent by Bankers cheque return memo dated 16.08.2022. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Deepak Nagar (supra) has observed thus: “14. In M/s Texco (Supra), this Court observed:- "xxx 8. The questions that arise for consideration in this case are; whether Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, is applicable to the statutory notice under section 138 of the Act? & whether the day on which the information is received by the complainant from the bank that the cheque has been dishonoured is to be included or excluded while computing the 30-day period prescribed for issuing the statutory notice? xxx 12. Seen from that perspective, the date on which the petitioner received the information of the dishonour of the cheque (i.e. 23.12.2006) is to be excluded for the purposes of computing the period of 30 days available under the Act for issuance of notice. On excluding the date 23.12.2006, from considering, it is seen 2022 SCC OnLine Del 295 2021 SCC OnLine Del 236 that the notice issued on 22.01.2007 has been issued on the 30th day, which would bring the said notice within the period prescribed. xxx" - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4178 CRL.P No. 103859 of 2023 15. Further, this Court in Rayapati Power Generation Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) observed:- "xxx 14. In the present case, the primary issue raised by learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of submissions is that the legal demand notices were not issued by the complainant Company within 30 days of the receipt of information regarding dishonor of the cheques, i.e., from the date of the return memos, and thus the complaints are not maintainable. On the other hand, the complainant Company maintains that it was intimated of the dishonor of the cheques in question only when its Bank sent the aforesaid return statements, and the legal demand notices were issued within 30 days thereafter. xxx 21. The legal position, as culled out from the judicial dicta referred to hereinabove, is that while computing the limitation period of 30 days prescribed under Section 138(b) N.I. Act for issuance of a valid legal notice, the day on which intimation is received by the complainant from the bank that the cheque in question has been returned unpaid has to be excluded. xxx" 16. Applying the abovementioned legal position to the present matter, it can be seen that admittedly while the information was received on 16.03.2022, the legal notice came to be issued on 16.04.2022. Even if the first day i.e. 16.03.2022 is excluded in computing the statutory period, the legal notice came to be issued on the 31st day i.e. beyond the statutory period provided under Section 138(b) of the NI Act.” 7. Admittedly in the case on hand, the information of dishonour of cheque was received on 16.08.2022 and the legal notice came to be issued on 16.09.2022. Even if - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4178 CRL.P No. 103859 of 2023 the first day i.e., 16.08.2022 is excluded in computing the statutory period, the legal notice came to be issued on 31st day i.e., beyond the statutory period provided under Section 138(b) of NI Act. 8. In view of the above said reasons, the following: ORDER The petition is allowed. The complaint along with the order of cognizance dated 23.12.2022 are hereby quashed so far as the petitioners are concerned. The respondent/complainant is at liberty to initiate any action in accordance with law for recovery of the cheque amount. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE Kmv CT-ASC