JUDGMENT 1. - By this criminal misc. petition, a challenge is made to the order taking cognizance of offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 so as the order passed on the revision petition. 2. A complaint under section 138 of the Act was filed by the respondent No.2 and cognizance of the offence has been taken. It is in ignorance of the fact that after getting information about dishonour of the cheque, compliance of the mandatory provision of notice, within thirty days after receipt of the information of dishonour of the cheque, has not been made. The revisional court held aforesaid not to be a mandatory provision, whereas, this court in the case of " Gopal Lai Kakhani v. Balmukand & anr.", 2012 (2) CrLR (Raj.) 691 , held aforesaid provision to be mandatory. 3. In the instant case, information about dishonour of the cheque was received by the complainant on 4.12.2009, whereas, notice was given on 8.2.2010 thus it was beyond the period of 30 days. In view of above, complaint is not maintainable. Reference of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of " CC Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed & anr.", AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 1705 , would be relevant. In para 6 of the said judgment, procedure for institution of the complaint has been given. As per the procedure, notice informing about dishonour of the cheque has to be given within 30 days from the date of receipt of the information thereof. In the instant case, provision aforesaid has not been followed thus complaint was not maintainable. 4. In the result, both impugned orders dated 29.8.2012 and 4.3.2010, so as the complaint are quashed. The petition is allowed. It would, however, not preclude the complainant respondent to file a suit for recovery of the amount.Petition Allowed. *******