JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner herein, who is the accused in CC.No.10724/2008 has come forward with this petition to quash the criminal prosecution initiated by the respondent/complainant for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The complaint proceeds as if the complainant is a partnership firm doing the money lending business and hire purchase finance and the accused is the Chairman of M/s.SRM Group of companies and Vice-Chancellor of SRM Deemed University and the accused in the course of his business obtained loan of Rs.60,00,000/-from the complainant and issued a cheque drawn on M/s. Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd, T.Nagar branch dated 16.08.2004 for Rs.50,00,000/-towards part payment of the amount borrowed and when the cheque was presented for collection in the complainant bank, the same was returned unpaid for want of sufficient funds vide memorandum dated 16.02.2005. The same was intimated to the complainant and the complainant forwarded a letter dated 26.02.2005 to the accused thereby intimating him about the dishonour of the cheque. The accused though acknowledged the same vide his letter dated 03.03.2005 denied his liability. 3. It is the specific case of the complainant that the accused issued the cheque, which was later dishonoured only with an intention to defraud the complainant. The paragraphs 8 to 11 of the complaint proceed to explain the circumstances under which the accused lodged the complaint against the complainant's auditor by name K.Subramaniam for the alleged offence under Section 420 IPC and enquiry held on the same, summons issued to the accused for the enquiry, and the seizure of the cheque in question bearing No.208775 dated 16.8.2004 pertaining to the case and the persistent refusal on the part of the police authority to return the original cheque, circumstances under which the private complaint is instituted along with the photo copy of the cheque in question and the complaint was taken up on file as C.C.No.10724 of 2008 by the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, arising out of which is the present petition. 4. The accused has in this criminal original petition sought to quash the criminal proceedings mainly on the ground that the communication dated 26.02.2005 about the dishonour of the cheque issued by the complainant to the accused in the form of letter, fall short of its requirement of statutory notice under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instrument Act. 4. The accused has in this criminal original petition sought to quash the criminal proceedings mainly on the ground that the communication dated 26.02.2005 about the dishonour of the cheque issued by the complainant to the accused in the form of letter, fall short of its requirement of statutory notice under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instrument Act. In the absence of issuance of one such notice along with the demand for payment of the amount mentioned in the cheque no cause of action arises for instituting the private complaint and the private complaint is premature and is not maintainable in law. 5. Whereas the learned counsel for the respondent/defacto complainant would try to impress upon the court that there is no prescribed form for the statutory demand notice to be issued under Clause (b) of proviso to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the contents of notice dated 26.02.2005 constitute valid demand for repayment of the cheque amount and satisfies the statutory requirement of Clause (b) of proviso to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 6. Heard the rival submissions made on both sides. 7. For the purpose of better appreciation, the contents of copy of the letter dated 26.02.2005 sent by the complainant to the accused enclosed at Page 5 of the typed set of papers shall be reproduced herein and the same are as follows : "We would like to kindly inform you that we had presented the cheque for an amount of Rs.50,00,000/-bearing No.208775 dated 16.08.2004 drawn on Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank has come back to us from the bank. Kindly do the needful. Thanking your with regards for M.M. Finance Corporation." 8. It is not in dispute that except this communication, there is no other communication either in the form of letter or notice issued to the accused regarding dishonour of cheque. It is equally not disputed that the communication dated 26.02.2005 is through letter dated 03.03.2005 replied by denying the very issuance of cheque, that too for discharge of any liability between the parties. 9. It is equally not disputed that the communication dated 26.02.2005 is through letter dated 03.03.2005 replied by denying the very issuance of cheque, that too for discharge of any liability between the parties. 9. Before going into the validity of the ground raised herein on merits it is but relevant to read Clause (b) of proviso to Sec.138 of N.I. Act which is extracted hereunder: "The payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be 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 thirty days) of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid". 10. The reading of the provision of law as extracted above would reveal that the same does not prescribe any specified form of such statutory notice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Bank of India V. Saxons Farms (1999) 8 SCC 221 clearly observed "though no form of notice is prescribed in clause Cl.(b) of the proviso to Section 138, the requirement is that the notice shall be given in writing within 15 days of receipt of information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid and in the notice, a demand for payment of the amount of the cheque has to be made." 11. The Supreme Court has in other judgment K.Bhaksaran V. Sankaran Vaidyhyam Balan in (1999) 7 SCC 510 further observed "under Cl.(b) of the proviso to S.138 of the Act the payee has the statutory obligation to make a demand by giving notice. The thrust in the clause is on the need to make a demand. It is only the mode for making such demand which the legislature has prescribed." It is observed by the Supreme Court in Krishna exports V. Rajudas (2004) 13 SCC 498 "even the letter by the complainant requiring the amount of payment of cheque to be arranged failing which to take legal action in the matter certainly qualified itself as a notice within the contemplation of Cl(c)". 12. 12. Thus, the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and our High Court would make it abundantly clear that the statutory notice issued under Cl.(b) (ii) to Sec.138 shall be in any form and the main requirement is that it shall contain demand for the immediate payment of the amount of cheque within the time specified therein. 13. In this case, if the contents of letter dated 26.02.2005 which is admittedly construed to be the statutory notice, is appreciated in the light of above cited legal principles, the same cannot be held to be proper notice as contemplated under Cl(b). As already referred to, it is only in the form of information to the petitioner herein, about the dishonour of the cheque and there is no demand for repayment of the amount. The recital to the effect "kindly do the needful" is in the form of request and fall short of demand. The request 'to do the needful' cannot be at any stretch of imagination construed as demand for immediate repayment of the cheque amount and the failure of compliance of the same cannot give rise to any cause of action for initiating criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 14. The same view is fortified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following judgments cited on the side of the petitioner (i) 2000 (2) SCC 380 (Suman Sethi v. Ajay K. Churiwal) (ii)2003 (4) CTC 252 K.R. Indira V. Dr. G.Adinarayana and (iii)2007 (5) CTC 876 Rahul Builders V. Arihant Fertilizers and chemical and another. In all three cases cited above, the Hon'ble Apex Court dealt with similar issue and decided the same in favour of the accused. In Suman Sethi case, it is observed by the Hon'ble Apex court that whether the notice is bad, would depend on the language of the notice and if additional claims are separately specified, other such claims for interest, cost etc would be superfluous and such additional claims would be severable and will not invalidate the notice. It is further observed therein that if in the notice, the demand is made without specifying what was due, the notice might well fail to meet the legal requirement and may be regarded as bad. It is further observed therein that if in the notice, the demand is made without specifying what was due, the notice might well fail to meet the legal requirement and may be regarded as bad. In 2003 (4) CTC 252 case, similar issue was raised that the notice sent did not meet the requirement of law for want of any specific demand for payment of cheque amount. Both the trial court and the High Court acquitted the accused on different ground and one of the grounds on which the order of acquittal was upheld by the High Court was with reference to the notice in question. It was contended therein that it is the substance and not the form should have primacy and the requirement of specific demand for payment of the amount being statutory and mandatory, the question of substantial compliance does not arise. It was also contended therein that common notice relating to alleged different loan transactions are not contemplated, when separate cheque were issued and complainants were different. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by duly analysing the issue, in the light of earlier Supreme Court decisions reported in 1999 (8) SCC 221 Central Bank of India V. Saxons Farms and others; 2000 (2) SCC 380 Suman Sethi V. Ajay K.Churiwal and another, is of the view that the notice though consolidated is perfect as it does not contain any demand for payment of the amount covered by the bounced cheque and such demand is conspicuously absent, as such the complaint based on such notice is not maintainable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has while doing so, observed that non compliance with the demand for payment of cheque amount, being the only incriminating circumstance which exposes the drawer for being proceeded against under Section 138 of the Act, the making of such demand in the notice is the statutorily envisaged demand and the absence of the same does invalidate the notice. It is further observed therein that the object of the notice is to give a chance to drawer of the cheque to rectify the omission to discharge the liability, as such, the demand has to be in relation to said amount of money as described in the provision. 15. In the next case, the statutory notice contains identical recitals to the effect that cheques returned unpassed on the ground that the account was already closed. 15. In the next case, the statutory notice contains identical recitals to the effect that cheques returned unpassed on the ground that the account was already closed. The drawer of the cheque was in the same notice requested to remit the payment within 10 days otherwise to take suitable action. There also an application was filed to reject the complaint on the ground that the notice issued was not valid one. Here again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has by applying the decision of the Supreme Court in Suman Sethi case as referred to above and another case reported in 2003 (4) CTC 252 K.R. Indira V. Dr. G.Addinarayana observed that there was no demand for payment of the cheque amount. The Hon'ble Supreme Court having found that there was no demand for payment of the cheque amount, applied the view expressed in earlier decision of the Supreme Court and upheld the finding of the trial Court that the notice in question is imperfect. It is observed in para 10 that the statue envisages application of the penal provisions and the penal provisions should be construed strictly, the condition precedent is service of notice and is imperative in character for maintaining a complaint and unless a notice is served in conformity with proviso(b) appended to Sec.138 of the Act, the complainant petition would not be maintainable and an omnibus notice without specifying as what was the amount due under the dishonoured cheque would not subserve the requirement of law. 16. The observation so laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments cited above, forcibly applies to the facts of the present case, wherein also the notice except making request to do the needful does not contain any demand for payment of the amount covered under the bounced cheque within 15 days and the conspicuous absence of one such demand renders the notice invalid and imperfect and the same does not give rise to any cause of action for maintaining the complaint against the accused. The reply issued by the accused to the notice dated 26.02.2005 thereby denying the liability will not render the notice dated 26.02.2005 valid which is otherwise not in conformity with the legal requirement and the complaint based on such notice is hence bad in law. The reply issued by the accused to the notice dated 26.02.2005 thereby denying the liability will not render the notice dated 26.02.2005 valid which is otherwise not in conformity with the legal requirement and the complaint based on such notice is hence bad in law. If the prosecution is allowed to be proceeded with on the basis of such complaint, it amounts to abuse of process of law and is likely to result in serious prejudice to the petitioner by subjecting him to ordeal and harassment of criminal trial. Thus, for the discussion held above, this Court is of the considered view that the criminal proceedings is liable to the quashed. 17. In the result, the criminal original petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.10724 of 2008 on the file of XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai stands quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.