2026:JHHC:11971 Cr.M.P. No. 2601 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2601 of 2024 Rafiqul Islam @ Md. Rafiqul Islam, aged about 40 years S/o Nurul Amin, R/o Village-Urang Basti, P.O. Khanajan & P.S. North Lakhimpur, District Lakhimpur, State-Assam … … Petitioner versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Arun Yadav, aged about-38 years, S/o Kishun Yadav, R/o Vill-Belkapi, P.S. Gorhar, District- Hazaribagh … … Opp. Parties -------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Mrityunjay Choudhary, Advocate For the State :Mr. Subodh Kumar Dubey, Addl. P.P. --------- P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. Notice issued to the opposite party no 2 through the process of the court has been received by the wife of the opposite party no 2. Notice was also issued to the opposite party no 2 through registered A/D post but neither the cover of the letter nor the A/D card has returned to this Court though more that 30 days have elapsed from the date of the notice being sent by registered A/D post. Under such circumstances, service of notice upon the opposite party no 2 is sufficient. 3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners in connection with Complaint Case No. 2433 of 2023 and also for quashing the order dated 28.02.2024 passed in connection with the same case by the JMFC, Hazaribagh, whereby and whereunder the learned magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, besides passing the summoning order. 4. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner issued two cheques to the complainant (opposite party no. 2) and the same were dishonoured. A notice was issued by the complainant but the amount was not paid within 15 days of receipt of the notice hence, the complaint was filed and basing upon which the learned JMFC, 2026:JHHC:11971 Cr.M.P. No. 2601 of 2024 Hazaribagh has taken cognizance of the offence as already indicated above. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Suman Sethi Vs. Ajay K. Churiwal and another, reported in (2000) 2 SCC 380 para 8 of which reads as under : “8.It is well settled principle of law that the notice has to be read as a whole. In the notice, demand has to be made for the "said amount" i.e. cheque amount. If no such demand is made the notice no doubt would fall .short of its legal requirement Where in addition to "said amount" there is also a claim by way of interest, cost etc. whether the notice is bad would depend on the language of the notice. If in a notice while giving the break up of the claim the cheque amount, interest, damages etc. are separately specified, other such claims for interest, cost etc. would be superfluous and these additional claims would he severable- and will not invalidate the notice. If, however, in the notice an ommbus demand is made without specifying what was due under the dishonored cheque, notice might well fail to meet the legal requirement and may be regarded as bad. submits that it is a settled principle of law that a notice was required under proviso (b) to section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and a demand has to be made for the cheque amount otherwise such general and omnibus notice will not qualify to be a notice under proviso (b) of section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner drawing attention of this court to the certified copy of the copy of notice kept at page 29-31 of the brief , that there is no specific demand for the cheque amount made therein, hence the said notice do not qualify to be a notice under proviso (b) of section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and in absence of notice being served demanding the cheque amount, the cognizance is bad in law. Therefore, it is submitted that the prayer made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 2026:JHHC:11971 Cr.M.P. No. 2601 of 2024 6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that perusal of the said notice reveals that in the said notice demand has been made upon the petitioner to settle all the disputes arising, which the petitioner undertook to the opposite party no. 2, along with mental and physical harassment within fortnight/15 days from the receipt of a notice failing which this petitioner shall be constrained to knock the door of civil/criminal court. 7. As in the demand no specific cheque amount has been mentioned, this court has no hesitation in holding that the notice kept at page 29-31 does not qualify to be a notice as prescribed under proviso (b) to section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. Accordingly, in the absence of a valid notice under proviso (b) to section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, this Court has no hesitation in holding the cognizance of the offence under section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 as taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate vide the order dated 28.02.2024 in Complaint Case No. 2433 of 2024 is not sustainable in law. 8. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner including the order dated 28.02.2024 passed in connection with Complaint Case No. 2433 of 2023 by the JMFC, Hazaribagh, is set aside. 9. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated: 23.04.2026 AFR/MM Uploaded on:- 0105/2026 Cp.03