V.K Jhanji, J.:— The present petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of complaint dated 18.7.1990, order of summoning dated 3.8.1990 of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate and also against order dated 5.7.1991 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, whereby his revision petition against the aforesaid order of summoning was dismissed. Complaint dated 18.7.1990 was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981 (in short, the Act).
2. As per averments made in the petition, the petitioner issued a cheque of Rs. 5,000/- dated 15.2.1990 drawn on Bareli Corporation Bank Limited, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, towards part payment for the purpose of Basmati rice. The cheque was presented to the State Bank of India. Ambala City, by the respondent, which was returned on 10.4.1990 by the Bank with the endorsement “Referred to drawer”. After the cheque was dishonoured, petitioner did not issue, any notice within first 15 days from the date of information from the bank regarding dishonour of the cheque as unpaid. He again presented the cheque on 29.5.1990, but was again dishonoured. It was only thereafter that respondent issued a legal notice to the petitioner on 9.6.1990, i.e within 15 days of the second presentation. On failure of the petitioner to make the payment, a complaint was filed by the respondent before the Judicial Magistrate. Before the Judicial Magistrate, a draft for Rs. 5,000/- was paid to the respondent who has since got the same encashed. Quashing of the complaint, order or summoning and order passed by Additional Sessions Judge in the revision petition filed against order of summoning, has been sought on the ground that under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the respondent was required to issue notice within 15 days from the date of intimation by the Bank regarding dishonour of the cheque and it does not give any right to the respondent to prosecute the petitioner, on the cheque which was dishonoured on second presentation.
3. Notice of the petition was given to the respondent. Respondent has not filed any reply to the petition.
4. Counsel for the petitioner in support of her arguments, has relied upon the judgments in K.P.V Textiles v. Malook Chand Naresh Chand, 1992 (2) R.C.R 425 and Kumaresan v. Ameorappa, 1991 (3) R.C.R 12.
5. In these judgments, it has been held by this court that no prosecution can be lodged against the accused on the basis of cheques again presented, but not honoured as the complainant could not have second cause of action on the same cheque. No judgment to the contrary has been cited by the counsel for the respondent. In view of the aforesaid judgments, this petition deserves to be accepted.
6. Consequently, this petition shall stand allowed and order dated 3.8.1990 of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra order dated 5.7.1991 of the Additional Sessions Judge Kurukshetra, and complaint, Annexure P-1 stand quashed.