JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.K. Jain, J.—Heard Sri Kashi Nath Shukla, holding brief of Sri Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri Dinesh Tiwari, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2, Anil Kumar Bansal. 2. This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been made by accused applicant Satish Grover to quash the complaint and entire criminal proceedings in complaint case No. 29 of 2002 Anil Kumar Bansal v. Satish Grover under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Agra. 3. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that opposite party No. 2 in his complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has not disclosed the date of service of notice, therefore, the complaint is not legally maintainable. In support of his contention the learned Counsel for the applicant has relied upon the case of M/s Shakti Travel and Tours v. State of Bihar and another, 2000 (2) JIC 512 (SC). 4. Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2 contended that applicant had issued a cheque of State Bank of India Shiv Market, Agra on 10-8-2000 for payment of money taken by him from opposite party No. 2. The same was presented by opposite party No. 2 in his account within six months, the same was dishonoured and returned to the applicant on 25-11-2000 with the endorsement that due to insufficient amount the payment was not made. Thereafter on assurance of applicant again the cheque was deposited in the last week of December on 21-12-2000. It was dishonoured on 23-12-2000 and returned by the Bank then a notice dated 3-1-2001 was issued. Inspite of receipt of notice the applicant did not pay the amount within 15 days. Thereafter the complaint was filed on 31-1-2001 within a month. In support of its case opposite party No. 2 examined himself under Section 200 Cr. P.C. and filed a registered notice, postal receipts and photo copy of the cheque and receipt given by the Bank by which it was dishonoured for insufficient amount and there is no illegality in the proceedings. 5. In support of its case opposite party No. 2 examined himself under Section 200 Cr. P.C. and filed a registered notice, postal receipts and photo copy of the cheque and receipt given by the Bank by which it was dishonoured for insufficient amount and there is no illegality in the proceedings. 5. A perusal of the copy of complaint filed by the applicant as Annexure A1 reveals that in para 3 of the complaint it has been stated by opposite party No. 2 that when the payment was not made on 3-1-2001 a notice was given to the applicant through Advocate Sri V.K. Srivastava and even after receipt of notice the applicant did not pay the amount within 15 days and has not made any payment till this date. 6. Along with the counter-affidavit copy of notice and photo copy of registry have been filed by opposite party No. 2 which as per the affidavit of opposite party No. 2 were also filed along with the complaint and the complainant in his statement under Section 200, Cr.P.C. also stated that a notice was given to the applicant on 3.1.2000. 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed and another] (2007) 6 SCC 555 has held that once a notice is sent by registered post by correctly addressing the drawer of the cheque, the service of notice is deemed to have been effected but the complaint must contain basic facts regarding the mode and manner of issuance of notice to the drawer. The mandatory requirement of issue of notice in terms of Section 138 proviso (b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act stands complied with when the notice is sent through registered post by correctly addressing the drawer of cheque. However, the drawer can rebut the presumption of service of notice by showing that he had no knowledge that the notice was brought to his address, or the address mentioned on the cover was incorrect, or the letter was never tendered, or the report of post man was incorrect. 8. However, the drawer can rebut the presumption of service of notice by showing that he had no knowledge that the notice was brought to his address, or the address mentioned on the cover was incorrect, or the letter was never tendered, or the report of post man was incorrect. 8. Keeping in view the above law and facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that it has been specifically stated in the complaint made by opposite party No. 2 that a notice was given to the applicant on 3.1.2001, demanding payment within 15 days but the opposite party did not pay the amount and the complaint was filed on 31.1.2001. The complainant in his statement under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has specifically stated that the notice was given on 3.1.2001 through his Advocate, but the payment was not made. Along with the complaint copy of the notice and photo copy of the registry were also filed. I am, therefore, of the opinion that this application is devoid of merit and is liable to be rejected and it is rejected accordingly. ————