JUDGMENT 1. - The petition has been filed against the order dated 26.6.2006 of revisional Court and the order of Trial Court dated 26.3.2004, whereby substance of offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Negotiable Instruments Act' short short) was read over to petitioner. 2. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that according to complainant himself on 5.6.2002, they received information regarding return of cheque, thereafter, they served legal notice through Advocate on 21.6.2002. As such the notice issued by complainant is time barred, and the proceedings initiated on the basis of time barred notice are liable to be quashed and set aside. Reliance is placed on Ganesh Das vs. Narendra Kumar, 1999 (3) WLC (Raj.) 457 , wherein it was held that since notice was sent within 15 days of the date of dishonour of cheque, the complaint was liable to be dismissed. The other contention of the learned counsel is that since the complaint filed by respondent is premature, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. Reliance is placed on Kunju Viswanadhan vs. Ramakrishnan Surendram, 1998 Cr LJ 3553 , and M/s. Harpreet Hosiery Rehari vs. Nine Mahajan, 2000 Cr LJ 3625 , wherein it was held that since the complaint was filed on 14th day of notice, the same is premature and liable to be dismissed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the material available on record. 4. Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act reads as under : (b) the payee or the holder in the due course of the cheque, as the case may he, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice, in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid, and A perusal of the aforesaid provision shown that notice, in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of information from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid, is a condition precedent. In the given case, admittedly the information regarding unpaid of cheque in question was received on 5.6.2002, and the legal notice was sent on 21.6.2002, which was not within fifteen days. In the given case, admittedly the information regarding unpaid of cheque in question was received on 5.6.2002, and the legal notice was sent on 21.6.2002, which was not within fifteen days. In view of the observations made in case of Ganesh Das (supra), the notice sent by respondent was time-barred. Hence, the complaint deserves to be dismissed. 5. Section 138(c) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, reads as under : (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. 6. A perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that fifteen days grace period is given to the defaulter party and he can make payment of the amount within fifteen days, as such after completion of fifteen days from the notice, cause of action will arise to the complainant. But in the present case, according to the complainant itself the notice was received by the petitioner on 22.6.2002, and the complaint has been filed on 6.7.2002, which was admittedly premature. In view of the observations made in case of M/s. Harpreet Hosiery Rehari (supra), the complaint of respondent is premature. 7. Consequently, the misc. petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 26.6.2006, passed by Revisional Court and 26.3.2004, passed by Trial Court arc quashed and set aside. The complaint filed by respondent No. 2, being premature, and on the basis of time-barred notice, is, hereby, quashed and set aside. 8. The record of Trial Court be sent back.Petition Allowed. *******