JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 with the prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No.2091 of 2022 including the order taking cognizance dated 31.03.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi and all subsequent proceedings pending before the learned trial Court of the said complaint case, as well as the order dated 12.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VIII, Ranchi in Criminal Revision No.511 of 2023 whereby and where under the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VIII, Ranchi dismissed the criminal revision. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioners are the accused persons of the said Complaint Case No.2091 of 2022. The admitted case of the petitioner is that the petitioner issued a cheque for Rs.1,08,000/- to the complainant. The complainant presented the said cheque with its banker, but the said cheque was dishonored and the cheque return memo bore the remarks ‘account closed’. As even after the demand of the cheque amount needed by the complainant by contacting the Directors of the accused company; the accused persons failed and neglected to remit the cheque amount; the complainant sent a legal notice through his lawyer to the accused person of the case, demanding payment of cheque amount within 15 days from the receipt of the notice. The legal notice was returned by the postal services. The Director of the company namely Awdesh Kumar requested the complainant not to move forward with the complaint in respect of the offence punishable under Section 138 NI Act and promised that he will re-issue a new cheque but as ultimately, they did not pay the cheque amount hence, the complainant filed this complaint. 4. The learned Judicial Magistrate-XVI, Ranchi on the basis of the materials available in the record found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and directed for issuance of summons. The said order of issuing summons has not been challenged by the petitioners in any manner by filing any criminal revision. The said order of issuing summons has not been challenged by the petitioners in any manner by filing any criminal revision. Criminal Revision No.511 of 2023 was filed against the order dated 25.08.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-XVI, Ranchi in connection with the said Complaint Case No.2091 of 2022 whereby a petition filed on behalf of the accused/petitioner namely Munish Vats seeking permission to compound the case has been rejected, but the said order dated 25.08.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-XVI, Ranchi has not been challenged in this Cr.M.P. 5. The learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VIII, Ranchi in the said order dated 12.03.2024 passed in Criminal Revision No.511 of 2023 relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of JIK Industries Limited & Others vs. Amarlal V. Jumani & Another reported in (2012) 3 SCC 255 , wherein in para-82, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed “therefore, Section 147 of NI Act must be reasonably construed to mean that as a result of the said section, the offences under the N.I. Act are made compoundable, but the main principle of such compounding, namely, the consent of the person aggrieved or the person injured or the complainant cannot be wished away nor can the same be substituted by virtue of Section 147 of the NI Act” and went on to hold that without the consent of the aggrieved person; herein the complainant, no composition of the offence as referred to in Section 147 of NI Act can be made out and did not find any fault with the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class in rejecting the prayer for composition of the offence, because of the absence of consent for composition of the offences by the complainant/aggrieved persons of the case and dismissed the criminal revision. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rekha Sharad Ushir Vs. Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsanta Ltd. reported in 2025 0 Supreme (SC) 541 , paragraph-20 & 21 of which reads as under:- “20. Thus, this was a case where very material documents in the form of two letters addressed by the appellant were suppressed in the complaint and the statement on oath under Section 200. Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsanta Ltd. reported in 2025 0 Supreme (SC) 541 , paragraph-20 & 21 of which reads as under:- “20. Thus, this was a case where very material documents in the form of two letters addressed by the appellant were suppressed in the complaint and the statement on oath under Section 200. In the statement on oath, the respondent- complainant vaguely referred to a ‘false notice reply’, but a copy of the reply was not produced by the respondent along with the complaint. 21. While filing a complaint under Section 200 of CrPC and recording his statement on oath in support of the complaint, as the complainant suppresses material facts and documents, he cannot be allowed to set criminal law in motion based on the complaint. Setting criminal law in motion by suppressing material facts and documents is nothing but an abuse of the process of law.” And submits that in that case as the two letters addressed by the accused persons were suppressed by the complainant and the statement on oath under Section 200 of CrPC and in the statement on oath, the complainant vaguely referred to a ‘false notice reply’, but the copy of the reply was not produced by the complainant along with the complaint, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that the same amounts to abuse of process of law. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submit that in this case also; though the petitioners sent a letter enclosing therewith a cheque of Rs.1,20,000/- but the said letter was never received by the complainant, so the same amounts to suppression of material facts and an abuse of process of law. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submit that in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H. reported in (2010) 5 SCC 663 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has framed the guidelines in respect of the composition of the offences, so the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VIII, Ranchi committed a grave illegality by not holding that the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class ought to have compound the offences once the petitioners approached the court with the cheque of, the dishonored cheque amount; besides some more money towards compensation. It is next submitted that since prior to filing of the complaint, the petitioners issued the said letter containing the cheque, which was refused to the received by the complainant. It is next submitted that since prior to filing of the complaint, the petitioners issued the said letter containing the cheque, which was refused to the received by the complainant. The issuance of such letter containing the cheque will amount to payment of the cheque amount, so the Proviso (c) of Section 138 of the NI Act having not been complied with; the learned Judicial Magistrate ought not have come to the conclusion that there exists prima facie case in respect of the offences punishable under Section 138 read with Section 141 of NI Act. Therefore, it is lastly submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this Cr.M.P., be allowed. 9. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and submit that so far as the cognizance order is concerned, it is submitted by the learned Addl.P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the facts of this case are entirely different from the facts of the case of Rekha Sharad Ushir Vs. Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsanta Ltd. (supra); i n the sense, that in Rekha Sharad Ushir Vs. Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsanta Ltd. (supra), the complainant received two letters of the accused persons, but in this case, admittedly, the letter issued by the petitioners to the complainant was inside a closed cover and admittedly, the complainant has not received the said closed cover. So, no knowledge of the contents of the letter, which was in a closed cover, can be attributed to the complainant, when admittedly the complainant has not received the letter and refused to receive the same, therefore, no suppression of material facts can be attributed to the complainant in this case, unlike, the case of Rekha Sharad Ushir Vs. Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsanta Ltd.(supra). 10. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sanjabij Tari vs. Kishore S. Borcar and Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2069 , paragraph-39 of which reads as under:- “39. Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsanta Ltd.(supra). 10. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sanjabij Tari vs. Kishore S. Borcar and Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2069 , paragraph-39 of which reads as under:- “39. This court is of the view that if the accused is willing to pay in accordance with the aforesaid guidelines, the court may suggest to the parties to go for compounding. If for any reason, the financial institutions/ complainant asks for payment other than the cheque amount or settlement of entire loan or other outstanding dues, then the magistrate may suggest to the accused to plead guilty and exercise the power under section 255(2) and/or 255(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure or 278 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and/or give the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the accused.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has laid down the procedure where a proceeding under Section 138 of NI Act can come to an end, if the accused persons of the case plead guilty, but here the accused person of the case, who is the petitioner herein, instead of pleading guilty in terms of paragraph-39 of Sanjabij Tari vs. Kishore S. Borcar and Another (supra); wanting a composition of the offences without the consent of the complainant; which is not sustainable in law as has been categorically settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of JIK Industries Limited & Others vs. Amarlal V. Jumani & Another (supra). It is next submitted that issuance of a cheque cannot amount the payment of money. The proviso (c) of Section 138 of NI Act mandates that if the payment of the cheque amount is made by the drawer of the cheque to the payee within 15 days, then the offence will not be made out. But here it is the admitted case of the petitioner/accused persons that he has only issued a cheque and sent it in a closed envelope which was never received by the complainant. But here it is the admitted case of the petitioner/accused persons that he has only issued a cheque and sent it in a closed envelope which was never received by the complainant. It is further submitted by the learned Addl.P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that for the first time in this Cr.M.P., the petitioner has come up with a case that he issued some letter to the complainant containing the cheque; which was never disclosed by the petitioner in the complaint case or before the revisional court in Criminal Revision No.511 of 2023. It is next submitted that a ground of fact for the first time cannot be taken in a criminal miscellaneous petition, when the order of the Court below is under challenge when before concerned lower court, such fact was never agitated. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 11. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, so far as the order dated 31.03.2022 is concerned, the undisputed facts remains that the petitioner issued a cheque which was dishonored and cheque amount was demanded by the complainant, but it is the case of the petitioner that too for the first time before this Court and which plea was never agitated before the learned Judicial Magistrate that he issued a cheque inside the closed cover and sent it to the complainant and the complainant refused to receive the same. 12. The plain reading of Proviso (c) of Section 138 NI Act which reads as under: “the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice” makes it abundantly clear that the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act will not be made out, if the drawer of the cheque makes the payment of the cheque amount to inter alia to the payee within 15 days of the demand of the cheque amount. 13. Now, this Court has no hesitation in holding that issuing a cheque in favor of someone cannot be treated as a payment of the money. 13. Now, this Court has no hesitation in holding that issuing a cheque in favor of someone cannot be treated as a payment of the money. The payment of money is complete when the person to whom, the money is paid, comes in possession of the same. It could either have been done by transferring the amount to his bank account or by paying the amount in cash. Therefore, firstly as the complainant had no knowledge as to what was there inside closed letter, if at all the same was issued by the petitioner. This apprehension is being mentioned because for the first time, the petitioner has come up with such a plea, which was never agitated before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate. So, even assuming that the petitioner has issued a cheque and sent it to the complainant and closed cover but the, was the refused to be received by the complainant; the same will not amount to payment of the money. Therefore, no illegality has been committed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in finding prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 138 read with Section 141 of NI Act and issuing the summoning order, therefore, there is no justifiable reason to accede to the prayer of the petitioner to quash the said order of taking cognizance dated 31.03.2022 of Complaint Case No.2091 of 2022. 14. So far as the order dated 12.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VIII, Ranchi in Criminal Revision No.511 of 2023 is concerned, in view of the settled principle of law in the case of JIK Industries Limited & Others vs. Amarlal V. Jumani & Another wherein in para-82, as already mentioned above in foregoing paragraph of the judgment; this Court has no hesitation in holding that it is the settled principle of law that without consent of the aggrieved person, no composition of the offence can be made in terms of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 15. The undisputed facts remains that the complainant has not consented for composition of the offence. Under such circumstances, the rejection of the prayer made by the petitioner for composition of the offences in the absence of the consent of the complainant cannot be said to be suffering from any illegality warranting interference by the Revisional Court being the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VIII, Ranchi in exercise of its Revisional Jurisdiction. Under such circumstances, the rejection of the prayer made by the petitioner for composition of the offences in the absence of the consent of the complainant cannot be said to be suffering from any illegality warranting interference by the Revisional Court being the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VIII, Ranchi in exercise of its Revisional Jurisdiction. Therefore, this Court do not find any illegality in the order dated 12.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VIII, Ranchi in dismissing the Criminal Revision No.511 of 2023, warranting interference of this court in exercise of the power under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagaria Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Hence, there is no justifiable reason to interfere with the said order dated 12.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VIII, Ranchi in dismissing the Criminal Revision No.511 of 2023. 16. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed.