Judgment 1. This is an application to quash the proceedings under Sec.138 read with 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and under Sec.420, I.P.C. These proceedings are sought to be quashed on two grounds, namely: 1. Admittedly the cheque was issued for the antecedent debt. So, the dishonour of cheque would not constitute the offence under Sec.420, I.P.C, and 2. After the dishonour of cheque, statutory notice had been sent by the complainant to the accused not only demanding the cheque amount, but also the interest for the said amount. As such, the statutory notice which demanded more than the cheque amount becomes invalid. 2. In elaboration of these points, Mr.Kalyanasundaram submits that the proceedings are invalid and the same are liable to be quashed. 3. Mr. Ashok Kumar, counsel for the respondent would resist the above submission stating that cognizance has been taken in this case not under Sec.420, I.P.C. but only under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He would further submit that since the statutory notice has been issued for the demand which included the cheque amount also, it shall be considered that notice is a valid one. 4. Mr.Kalyanasundaram, counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submission, relied on the following decisions: (i) A.C.Raj, Inchivila, Thottathu Veedu Parasala v. M.Rajan, Ezhakudivila Veedu and another A.C.Raj, Inchivila, Thottathu Veedu Parasala v. M.Rajan, Ezhakudivila Veedu and another , 1997 Crl.L.J. 1939 and (ii) GopaDebi Ozha v. Sujit Paul Gopa Debi Ozha v. Sujit Paul , 1995 Crl.LJ. 3412. In both these decisions, it is held that the notice demanding the amount higher than the amount mentioned in the cheque is illegal. 5. This Court, on various occasions, has held that subsequent to the dishonour of the cheque, the complainant is entitled to send the statutory notice demanding the cheque amount as well as the interest accrued on the said amount. In that view of the matter, I am not able to agree with the view expressed by the Kerala High Court and the Calcutta High Court. The only mandatory provision contemplated under the relevant provision is that before filing the complaint, the complainant must give an opportunity to the accused to pay the cheque amount within the statutory period of 15 days, after receipt of the notice. Only on the 15th day, the non-payment of the said amount would give rise to a cause of action. The only mandatory provision contemplated under the relevant provision is that before filing the complaint, the complainant must give an opportunity to the accused to pay the cheque amount within the statutory period of 15 days, after receipt of the notice. Only on the 15th day, the non-payment of the said amount would give rise to a cause of action. Therefore, in this case, admittedly, notice had been sent by the complainant asking for the amount consisting of the cheque amount as well as the interest and as such, the notice cannot be said to be invalid, As a matter of fact, as contemplated in the Act, an opportunity had been given by the complainant to the accused. However, despite the receipt of the said notice, admittedly the demand had not been complied with. In view of the fact situation, I feel that the complaint is valid. 6. Regarding Sec.420, I.P.C., as pointed out by Mr.Ashok Kumar, I find that cognizance had not been taken under Sec.420, I.P.C. by the trial court as the averments in the complaint would not constitute the offence under Sec.420, I.P.C. Therefore quashing the offence under Sec.420, I.P.C. would not arise. 7. It is pointed out by Mr.Kalyanasundaram, counsel for the petitioner that the notice which was alleged to have been sent by the complainant, has not actually been received by the accused. This is a matter, to be gone into by the trial court, only on conclusion of trial. 8. Under these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is dismissed.