A 'Cheque Bounce' Complaint Filed, Based On A Second Statutory Notice Issued After Re-Presentation Of Cheques, Is Maintainable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA M/s. Sicagen India Ltd. vs. Mahindra Vadideni & Ors. [criminal appeal nos. 26-27 of 2019] dated: 08.01.2019

FACTS

The Appeal was filed against the orders of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 14.11.2011 in Crl. O.P. No. 20401 of 2011 and 15.12.2014 Crl. O.P.S.R. No. 55782 of 2014.

The orders quashed the criminal complaint filed by the Appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

In the present case, M/s. Sicagen India Ltd (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellant') was involved in business dealings with Mahindra Vadideni (hereinafter referred to as 'the Respondent').

In the course of business dealings, the Respondent issued three cheques in favor of the Appellant. Thee cheques were presented for collection and they were dishonoured due to insufficient funds.

Hence, the Appellant issued the first statutory notice to the Respondent on 31.08.2009, demanding the refund of the cheque amounts. The cheques were presented again and dishonored again.

Hence, on 25.01.2010 the Appellant issued a statutory notice to the Respondent and filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). This complaint was based on the second statutory notice dated 25.01.2010.

The Respondent filed a petition before the High Court of Judicature at Madras under Section 482 of CrPC seeking to quash the criminal complaint on the ground that the complaint was not filed based on the first statutory notice dated 31.08.2009. Hence the complaint filed on the basis of the second statutory notice dated 25.01.2010 was not maintainable.

The District Court, vide its ordered dated 27.01.2017, held that the petition was not maintainable and an application under Section 16 of the said Act must be filed before the Arbitral Tribunal.

The Appellant filed a Civil Revision Petition being C.R.P. No. 3279 of 2017 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.

The Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras, quashed the criminal complaint filed by the Appellant. The Hon'ble Court held that it was not maintainable since the amount had been specifically mentioned in the first statutory notice dated 31.08.2009, but the complaint was filed, instead, on the basis of the second statutory notice dated 25.01.2010 by postponing the matter.

Further, the Hon'ble Court held that since the complaint had been filed on the same cause of action as the first statutory notice, it...