1. By this application U/s. 482 CrPC, the petitioner prays for quashing of the complaint No. 4837c/2003 filed by the respondent U/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. 2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner issued Cheque No. 159095 dated 18.02.2003 for Rs. 10 (ten) lakhs drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, 393, Sir Mangal Das House Lamington Road Branch, Mumbai 400 004 in favour of the respondent. The respondent presented the cheque for payment with its banker Canara Bank, Guwahati Main Branch on 12.08.2003. The information regarding dishonour of the cheque was received by the respondent on 17.09.2003. Thereafter the respondent sent notice to the petitioner demanding the said cheque amount on 13.10.2003 by Courier Service and also by Speed Post with A/D Card on 31.10.2003. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the Cheque No.159095 dated 18.02,2003 was presented to the drawer bank for encashment on 19.08.2003 after validity period of 6(six) months and as such, complaint is not maintainable and no criminal liability could be attributed to the petitioner. 4. Section 138 of the N.I. Act, provides that the cheque is to be presented to the 'Bank' within a period of 6 (six) months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier. It is the cheque drawn which has to be presented to the Bank within the period specified therein. 5. In Shri Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd Vs Jayaswals Neco Ltd, reported in (2001) 3 SCC 609 . The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced below:- “Para 9. The use of the words “a bank” and “the bank” in the section is an indicator of the intention of the legislature. The former is an indirect (sic indefinite) article and the latter is prefixed by a direct (sic definite) article. If the legislature intended to have the same meanings for “a bank” and “the bank”, there was no cause or occasion for mentioning it distinctly and differently by using two different articles. It is worth noticing that the word “banker” in Section 3 of the Act is prefixed by the indefinite article “a” and the word “bank” where the cheque is intended to be presented under Section 138 is prefixed by the definite article “the”. It is worth noticing that the word “banker” in Section 3 of the Act is prefixed by the indefinite article “a” and the word “bank” where the cheque is intended to be presented under Section 138 is prefixed by the definite article “the”. The same section permits a person to issue a cheque on an account maintained by him with “a bank” and makes him liable for criminal prosecution if it is returned by “the bank” unpaid. The payment of the cheque is contemplated by “the bank” meaning thereby where the person issuing the cheque has an account. “The” is the word used before nouns, with a specifying or particularising effect as opposed to the indefinite or generalising force of “a” or “an”. It determines what particular thing is meant; that is, what particular thing we are to assume to be meant. “The” is always mentioned to denote a particular thing or a person. “The” would, therefore, refer implicitly to a specified bank and not any bank. “The bank” referred to in clause (a) to the proviso to Section 138 of the Act would mean the drawee bank on which the cheque is drawn and not all banks where the cheque is presented for collection including the bank of the payee, in whose favour the cheque is issued. “Para 10. It, however, does not mean that the cheque is always to be presented to the drawer's bank on which the cheque is issued. The payee of the cheque has the option to present the cheque in any bank including the collecting bank where he has his account but to attract the criminal liability of the drawer of the cheque such collecting bank is obliged to present the cheque in the drawee or payee bank on which the cheque is drawn within the period of six months from the date on which it is shown to have been issued. In other words a cheque issued by (A) in favour of (B) drawn in a bank named (C) where the drawer has an account can be presented by the payee to the bank upon which it is drawn i.e. (C) bank within a period of six months or present it to any other bank for collection of the cheque amount provided such other bank including the collecting bank presents the cheque for collection to (C) bank. The non-presentation of the cheque to the drawee bank within the period specified in the section would absolve the person issuing the cheque of his criminal liability under Section 138 of the Act, who shall otherwise may be liable to pay the cheque amount to the payee in a civil action initiated under the law. A combined reading of Sections 3, 72 and 138 of the Act would leave no doubt in our mind that the law mandates the cheque to be presented at the bank on which it is drawn if the drawer is to be held criminally liable. Such presentation is necessarily to be made within six months at the bank on which the cheque is drawn, whether presented personally or through another bank, namely, the collecting bank of the payee”. 6. In the instant case, the complainant -respondent has not mentioned in the complaint regarding the date on which the cheque was received by drawer's bank. It appears from the Annexure DI , annexed with the complaint that the Cheque No. 159095 for an amount of Rs. 10(ten) lakhs could not be cleared by the drawer's bank as the payment was stopped by the drawer and the drawer's intimation was given on 25.08.2003. It appears from the Annexure DI that the clearing date was 19.08.2003 but the date of receipt of the Cheque by the bank has not been mentioned. 7. Now the question is whether the cheque was received by the bank within the stipulated period of 6(six) months. Since the date of receipt of the cheque has not been mentioned in Annexure DI, it is difficult of come to a definite finding regarding the date on which it was received by the bank. Sometime the banks do not take up the cheques for clearance on the date of receipt of the cheque. U/s. 138 of the N.I. Act, the statutory requirement is the date on which the cheque is received and not the date when it is taken up by the bank for clearance. The complainant-respondent has cited the Managers of both the banks as witness in his complaint and there is still scope for him for proving that the cheque was received by the bank within the statutory period. 8. There are catena of decisions of the Apex Court regarding the exercise of power U/s. 482 of the CrPC. The complainant-respondent has cited the Managers of both the banks as witness in his complaint and there is still scope for him for proving that the cheque was received by the bank within the statutory period. 8. There are catena of decisions of the Apex Court regarding the exercise of power U/s. 482 of the CrPC. In Indian Oil Corpn Vs NEPC India Ltd And others, reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736 , the Apex Court laid down the principles while exercising the jurisdiction U/s. 482 of the CrPC to quash the complaint and criminal proceeding. The principles relevant to this case are:- (i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint. (iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. It the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence”. 9. In the instant case, the complainant-respondent claims that he had presented the cheque dated 18.02.2003 on 12.08.2003 to the Canara Bank, which appears to have been taken up for clearance by Oriental Bank of Commerce on 19.08.2003. The statutory requirement is not the date of clearance but the date on which the cheque is received. It is for the complainant-respondent to prove during trial that it was received by the drawer's bank within the stipulated period. At this stage, it cannot be held with certainty that the cheque was received by the bank after the statutory period. 10. It is for the complainant-respondent to prove during trial that it was received by the drawer's bank within the stipulated period. At this stage, it cannot be held with certainty that the cheque was received by the bank after the statutory period. 10. Consequently, I am of the considered view that the complaint filed by the respondent cannot be dismissed and quashed in exercise of power U/s. 482 of the Cr.PC and the petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed, which I accordingly do. 11. Send down the LCR forthwith along with a copy of this judgment and order for necessary action. 12. The complainant-respondent be notified before proceeding with the trial. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Trial Court on 03.09.2015 to face the trial.