ORDER Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. Invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner/accused herein has filed this petition seeking quashment of Criminal Case No. 1354/2012 registered in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surajpur; and also for quashment of order dated 22.08.2012 taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (henceforth "the NI Act, 1881"). FACTS Respondent/complainant filed a complaint for the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') stating inter alia that the petitioner/accused while carrying on the business of printing and flex in the name & style of M/s. Golden Graphics, at the time of Bhatagaon bye election of local assembly he had contacted the complainant and borrowed a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- with understanding and assurance that he would return the said amount after clearance of the bill alongwith profits which he would earn from this work. That amount was alleged to be given as a loan. 2. It is further case of the complainant, that petitioner gave a cheque of Rs. 3,60,000/- dated 18.1.2012 in lieu of repayment of above stated loan, which was deposited by the complainant on his Bank account on 22.02.2012, but the said cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient fund in the account of the petitioner; and on the statement given by the petitioner, complainant again presented the cheque into the Bank but the said cheque was again dishonoured on 8.5.2012. 3. Complainant issued statutory notice in terms of second proviso to Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881 demanding cheque amount through his counsel vide Annexure P-3 stating that cheque in question was returned to him on 8.5.2012 itself and, therefore, requested for the payment of the cheque amount within the period prescribed, failing which he will constrained to take action against him as provided in Section 138 of the NI Act. 4. The petitioner herein replied to the said statutory notice denying all the allegations of the complainant and specifically replied that the said notice is hit by proviso (b) appended to Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881 filed as Annexure P-4 and, as such, the cause of action is not complete to attract Section 138 of N.I. Act. 5. 4. The petitioner herein replied to the said statutory notice denying all the allegations of the complainant and specifically replied that the said notice is hit by proviso (b) appended to Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881 filed as Annexure P-4 and, as such, the cause of action is not complete to attract Section 138 of N.I. Act. 5. Thereafter, the respondent/complainant filed a criminal complaint for commission of offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881. 6. Learned trial Court by its order dated 22.08.2012 has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881 finding sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner herein and directed issuance of the process to the present petitioner. 7. Questioning the said order and questioning the said proceeding, the petitioner had filed the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. CONTENTIONS 8. Appearing for the petitioner/accused, Shri Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, learned counsel would submit that the statutory notice sent by the respondent/complainant under proviso to Section 138(b) of the N.I. Act, 1881 demanding cheque amount is completely beyond the period prescribed under second proviso to Section 138 of the NI Act as admittedly and undisputably as mentioned in the said statutory notice sent by the complainant, he deposited the cheque in question on 8.5.2012 and on the said date cheque in question was dishonoured and in writing it was returned to the complainant along with the note of insufficient fund and the petitioner has highlighted the said fact in replying the statutory notice issued by respondent/complainant and, thereafter, respondent/complainant after due deliberation and consultation improved his case while filing the complaint that the cheque in question was returned by the State Bank of India, Branch-Vishrampur on 9.5.2012, therefore, the cause of action for filing complaint was not complete as the statutory notice demanding cheque amount was not issued within 30 days of the receipt of information to him from the Bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid, therefore, order taking cognizance as well as entire proceeding initiated against him deserves to be quashed. 9. 9. Appearing for the respondent, Shri Ashish Surana, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant would submit that the notice in writing from the Bank dishonouring the cheque was received by the respondent/complainant on 9.5.2012 and excluding the date 9.5.2012 while computing the period of 30 days, notice was issued to the petitioner on 8.6.2012 within a period of 30 days of the receipt of information to him from the Bank regarding return of cheque as unpaid. He would further submit that the date of receipt of information to him from the Bank regarding return of cheque as unpaid is a disputed question of fact and it cannot be entertained and examined at this stage in the petition filed under Section 482of the Code, as such, this petition deserves to be dismissed. DISCUSSION 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record following facts would emerge:-- The cheque in question issued by the petitioner/accused was dishonoured by the State Bank of India, Vishrampur Branch on 8.5.2012. The cheque in question was returned to the respondent/complainant holding insufficient fund on 8.5.2012 itself. The respondent/complainant issued statutory notice under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881 on 08.06.2012. The petitioner replied the said notice on 19.06.2012 holding respondent/complainant's statutory notice to be hit by proviso (b) to Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881. Criminal complaint for commission of offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881 read with Section 420 I.P.C. was filed before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surajpur on 18.07.2012; and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence on 22.08.2012. 11. At this stage, in order to appreciate the submissions raised at the bar, it would be profitable to take note of Section138 of the N.I. Act, 1881, which reads as under:-- "138. 11. At this stage, in order to appreciate the submissions raised at the bar, it would be profitable to take note of Section138 of the N.I. Act, 1881, which reads as under:-- "138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.--Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for [a term which may be extended to two years], or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless-- (a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (b) 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; and (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." 12. In order to constitute an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, their Lordship of Supreme Court in case of Jugesh Shegal Vs. In order to constitute an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, their Lordship of Supreme Court in case of Jugesh Shegal Vs. Shamsher Singh Gogi AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2022, noted following ingredients which are required to be fulfilled:-- "(i) a person must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by him in a bank for payment of a certain amount of money to another person from out of that account; (ii) the cheque should have been issued for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability; (iii) that cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six month from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier; (iv) that cheque is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of the account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with the bank; (v) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque 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 15 days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; (vi) the drawer of such cheque fails to make payment of the said amount of money to the money to the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice. Being cumulative, it is only when all the aforementioned ingredients are satisfied that the person who had drawn the cheque can be deemed to have committed an offence under Section 138 of the Act." 13. The period of 15 days as prescribed in proviso (b) appended to Section 138 of the Act, 1881 has been amended by Act No. 55 of 2002 with effect from 6-2-2003 and it has been enhanced to 30 days. 14. Extremely recently, in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. The period of 15 days as prescribed in proviso (b) appended to Section 138 of the Act, 1881 has been amended by Act No. 55 of 2002 with effect from 6-2-2003 and it has been enhanced to 30 days. 14. Extremely recently, in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. AIR 2014 SC 3519 , their Lordships of Supreme Court has held that proviso to Section 138 simply defers institution of criminal proceedings and taking of cognizance by the Court till such time cause of action in terms of clause (c) of proviso accrues to the complainant. Paragraph 56 of the report states as under:-- "56. To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (ii) Cognizance of any such offence is however forbidden under Section 142 of the Act except upon a complaint in writing made by the payee or holder of the cheque in due course within a period of one month from the date of cause of action accrues to such payee or holder under clause (c) of proviso to Section 138. (iii) The cause of action to file a complaint accrues to a complainant accrues to a complainant/payee/holder of a cheque in due course if. (a) the dishonoured cheque is presented to the drawee bank within a period of six months from the date of its issue. (b) If the complainant has demanded payment of cheque amount within thirty days of receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the dishonour of the cheque and (c) If the drawer has failed to pay the cheque amount within fifteen days of receipt of such notice. (iv) The facts constituting cause of action do not constitute the ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act. (v) The proviso to Section 138 simply postpones/defers institution of criminal proceedings and taking of cognizance by the Court till such time cause of action in terms of clause (c) of proviso accrues to the complainant. (iv) The facts constituting cause of action do not constitute the ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act. (v) The proviso to Section 138 simply postpones/defers institution of criminal proceedings and taking of cognizance by the Court till such time cause of action in terms of clause (c) of proviso accrues to the complainant. (vi) Once the cause of action accrues to the complainant, the jurisdiction of the Court to try the case will be determined by reference to the place where the cheque is dishonoured. (vii) The general rule stipulated under Section 177 of Cr.P.C. applies to cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Prosecution in such cases can, therefore, be launched against the drawer of the cheque only before the Court within whose jurisdiction the dishonour takes place except in situations where the offence of dishonour of the cheque punishable under Section 138 is committed along with other offences in a single transaction within the meaning of Section 220(1) read with Section184 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or is covered by the provisions of Section 182(1) read with Sections 184 and 220 thereof." 15. In light of ingredients to be fulfilled as provided in proviso (b) to Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881, respondent/complainant must demand the payment of cheque amount within 30 days of the receipt of information by him from the Bank regarding dishonour of cheque. 16. If the facts of the present case are examined in light of the statutory provisions contained in Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881, as considered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the afore-stated cases (supra), it is quite vivid that respondent/complainant in the statutory notice issued under Section 138(b) of the N.I. Act, 1881 unequivocally admitted that the cheque in question was returned to him by the State Bank of India, Vishrampur Branch on 8.5.2012 holding insufficient fund. Paragraph three of the notice states as under:-- ^^;g fd esjs i{kdkj us Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ‘kk[kk foJkeiqj ds vius [kkrk Øekad 10996432807 es mDr psd Hkqxrku gsrq tek fd;k FkkA fdUrq Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad foJkeiqj us fnukad 08-05-2012 dks gh psd esjs i{kdkj dks ;g fy[kdj okil dj fn;k fd vkids [kkrs esa fuf/k de gS ftlls ;g psd vknfjr ugh gqvkA^^ 17. The petitioner sent his reply to the statutory notice on 19.06.2015 stating that notice is hit by the provisions contained in Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which states as under:-- ^^6- ;g fd vki fookfnr pSd dks fnuakd 08-05-2012 dks Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad foJkeiqj esa izLrqr djuk n’kkZ;s gS rFkk fnukad 08-06-2012 dks esjs oknkFkhZ dks uksfVl nsuk n’kkZrs gS ,slh fLFkfr esa vki fnukad 08-05-2012 ds ,d ekg ds vanj esjs oknkFkhZ dks uksfVl ugha fn;s gSA ifj.kkeLo:i vkidk nkok ijØkE; fy[kr vf/kfu;e] 1881 esa fn;s izko/kku ds vuqlkj vof/k ckgkz gSA^^ 18. Thus, the aforesaid narration of the facts would clearly show that information has been received by the respondent/complainant from the Bank regarding dishonour of cheque in writing on 8.5.2012 and he issued notice demanding the amount of cheque on 08.06.2012, which is 31st day as 30 days from receipt of information of unpaid cheque had already completed on 7.6.2012 and, thus, one of the essential ingredient of demanding amount of cheque within 30 days from the receipt of information from the Bank regarding dishonour of cheque is not satisfied in the case in hand and, therefore, there is no cause of action accrued in favour of the respondent/complainant to institute criminal complaint for commission of offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 19. Submissions of learned counsel for the respondent/complainant that the cheque in question was received by the respondent on 9.5.2012 and the same is matter of evidence, is in the considered opinion of this Court is not acceptable as it is only result of consultation and deliberation. 19. Submissions of learned counsel for the respondent/complainant that the cheque in question was received by the respondent on 9.5.2012 and the same is matter of evidence, is in the considered opinion of this Court is not acceptable as it is only result of consultation and deliberation. Averments made in the statutory notice clearly states that the cheque in question, after dishonour was received by him on 8.5.2012 deserves acceptance as the contents of the statutory notice would stand in higher pedestal than averment made in complaint filed by the petitioner after noticing the fact that statutory notice is hit by proviso (b) to Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881; and once the facts are admitted by the complainant, in his statutory notice in writing under the provisions of N.I. Act, 1881, it cannot be brushed aside merely on the subsequent improvement made by the respondent/complainant as the accrual of the cause of action has to be gathered on the basis of admitted facts brought on record on the date of institution of the complaint as admittedly the dishonour of cheque in question was informed to the respondent No. 3/complainant on 8.5.2013 in writing by bank. 20. Resultantly, it is held that no cause of action has accrued to the respondent/complainant as the facts constituting the cause of action, particularly, demanding payment of cheque in question within 30 days from the receipt of information of dishonour of cheque is absolutely missing in the case and, as such, principle laid down by their Lordship of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases (supra) in such circumstances cognizance of offence is forbidden. 21. As a fall out and consequence of the aforesaid discussion, petition under Section 482 of the Code filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of the Criminal Case No. 1354/2012 deserves to be and is hereby allowed and sequitur to that order dated 22.08.2012 taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881 passed in the aforesaid case and complaint case No. 1354/2012 (Ashok Agrawal Vs. M/s. Gulden Graphics) pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surajpur stand quashed. No order as to costs.