JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. Mayank Mohit Sinha for the petitioner and Mr. Manoj Kumar for the accused/opposite party No. 2 and also the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. Petitioner is seeking special leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 6th September. 2017 passed in Complaint Case No. 658/2013 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi where under the sole accused/opposite party No. 2 has been acquitted of the charges under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 3. As per the complainant's case, he had approached the accused person in July, 2012 with an intention to marry his daughter Namrata Mishra. The marriage was settled after several rounds of meetings. Son of the accused was doing a job in WIPRO with a handsome salary. 11th March 2012 was fixed for the ring ceremony and bookings were made with mutual consent at Capitol Hill, Main Road, Ranchi towards which Rs. 40,000/- was expended. Ring ceremony was performed in the presence of near and dear ones with usual norms and rituals and valuable articles with Cash Rs. 51.000/- were given to the groom. Date of marriage was fixed on 24th June, 2012 Complainant was shocked to know later on that the groom was unavailable on the date fixed because his leave was not sanctioned. Again a marriage hall (Amaltash Banquet) at Ashok Nagar, Ranchi was booked which entailed further expenditure of Rs. 25,000/- as advance. The revised date of marriage was 25th November, 2012. The complainant's daughter had before the revised date of marriage visited the groom at London and given advance accommodation booking charges of 3000 pounds as per his demand. She had also borne expenditure of 300 pounds on cooking items, utensils and appliances. As such she expended a sum of Rs. 2,87,100/- towards the aforesaid purpose. Thereafter it came to the knowledge of the complainant and his daughter that the boy was in illicit relation with one Bangali girl Sangita Mazumdar, an office co-employee at INFOSYS, Kolkata. Realizing the mischievous acts and illicit relationship, he asked the boy to refund the entire amount that was directly or indirectly paid to him. Two post -dated cheques bearing No. 061777 dated 15th November, 2012 and bearing No. 061778 dated 15th December, 2012, each of the value of Rs. 2 lakh drawn at Axis Bank, Ranchi were issued. Realizing the mischievous acts and illicit relationship, he asked the boy to refund the entire amount that was directly or indirectly paid to him. Two post -dated cheques bearing No. 061777 dated 15th November, 2012 and bearing No. 061778 dated 15th December, 2012, each of the value of Rs. 2 lakh drawn at Axis Bank, Ranchi were issued. On presentation they were returned on 12th February 2013 with the remark "stopped payment". Thus, the accused persons had dishonestly resiled from their promise to pay the amount and thereby became liable for the offence under Sections 138, 139 and 142 of the N.I. Act. The complainant also alleged loss of Rs. 7,85,000/- for the purpose of marriage of his daughter with the boy a including cash payments against due installments of NBCC flat of the accused person situated at Rajarhat. Kolkata However the complainant did not get back the money towards the installments of the flat. Accordingly registered legal notice was issued upon them on 25th February 2013 for refund of the dishonored cheques and other losses and expenditure but they denied the same on false grounds through their legal reply dated 13th March 2013 received by the complainant on 14th March 2013. The complaint was accordingly filed on 19th March 2013 under the aforesaid Sections read with Sections 417, 418, 420 and 496 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused and his son the erstwhile prospective groom. 4. Prima-facie case was found after solemn affirmation and inquiry under Section 138. N.I. Act against the present accused and cognizance was taken on 6th May 2014. He appeared on summon and charges were framed under the said Section and explained to him. He denied and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Statement of accused under Section 313, Cr PC was also recorded on 6th September. 2016. 5. The complainant examined himself as CW 1, his wife Mrs. Usha Mishra as CW 2 and adduced the following documentary evidence :- Exbt. 1 and 1/1 are cheque bearing No. 061777 dated 15.11.2012 and cheque No. 061778 dated 15.12.2012 each valued at Rs. 2,00.000/- (two lacs) only of Axis Bank. Rajarhat (W.B.) Exbt. 2 is legal notice dated 25.2.2013. Exbt. 3 is postal receipts dated 25.2.2013. Exbt. 4 and 4/1 are cheque return memos dated 12.2.2013. 6. 1 and 1/1 are cheque bearing No. 061777 dated 15.11.2012 and cheque No. 061778 dated 15.12.2012 each valued at Rs. 2,00.000/- (two lacs) only of Axis Bank. Rajarhat (W.B.) Exbt. 2 is legal notice dated 25.2.2013. Exbt. 3 is postal receipts dated 25.2.2013. Exbt. 4 and 4/1 are cheque return memos dated 12.2.2013. 6. The accused examined himself as DW 1 and proved photocopy of the agreement dated 17th October. 2012 as Exbt. A on admission of the complainant and other such documents described "hereunder:- Exbt. B-original copy of message of Bon Voyage Travels and Holiday dated 8th November, 2012. Exbt. C-copy of email message of 11 Namrata Mishra to Binod Kumar Pandey dated 9th November, 2012. Exbt. D to D to 9-original copies of deposit slip dated 16.11.2012, 21.11.2012 (4 sheets), 22.11.2012, 7.1.2013, 9.1.2013, 17.1.2013 and 6.2.2013 of State bank of India. Exbt. E and F-copies of emails of, Namrata Mishra and Anshuman Pandey dated 11.12.2012, 18.1.2013 and 19.1.2013. Exbt. G-original copy of reply cum legal notice dated 13.3.2013 of legal notice dated 25.2.2013. 7. CW 1 and CW 2 both supported the case of the complainant and identified and proved the dishonored cheques, legal notice, return cheque memos and postal receipts. The said cheques were presented to the State Bank of India, Harmu Branch on 10th February 2013 and were returned with endorsement "Payment Stopped by Drawer" on 12th February 2013. Legal notice was sent by registered post on 25.02.2013 demanding Rs. 7,85,100/- as per the details of the expenditure of the marriage described therein apart from the claim of Rs. 4 lacs towards the dishonored cheques. Accused did not return the money but sent a reply dated 13th March 2013 received on 14th March 2013 denying the liability. The case was filed on 19th March 2013. DW 1 in his examination in-chief stated about the date of solemnization of marriage as 24th June, 2012 between his son and the daughter of the complainant. However, due to fracture of leg of the complainant's wife and non-grant of leave of his son, it was postponed by mutual consent to 25th November, 2012. The prospective bride was doing job in Bangaluru in TCS company. She was transferred to London where his son was doing job in WIPRO company. However, due to fracture of leg of the complainant's wife and non-grant of leave of his son, it was postponed by mutual consent to 25th November, 2012. The prospective bride was doing job in Bangaluru in TCS company. She was transferred to London where his son was doing job in WIPRO company. They executed a rent agreement for a flat at Gateway Court, 5-7 Parhan Drive, Gants Hill, Esswx, IG2, 6LG on 17th October, 2012 to live together after marriage. At the time of agreement she had advanced Rs. 2,26,000/- to the landlord. He had booked a ticket for the girl on her direction on 8th November, 2012 for travelling from London to New Delhi where she had to come on 17th November, 2012. On 30th November, 2012. she had to return London. She informed him through email that she could not come for marriage because her leave was cancelled and if she comes, she had to bear loss of Rs. 4.5 lacs. The son of the accused therefore requested to postpone the date of the marriage. After receiving the email of the girl, he talked with the complainant and agreed to bear the loss sustained by the girl and issued two post-dated cheques of Rs. 2 lacs as mentioned above. Thereafter, the complainant informed him that the girl could not come to India because of non-grant of leave and the marriage was rescheduled to 25th November, 2012. On coming to know of the decision, he asked the bank to stop payment through letter dated 12th. November, 2012. He further thought to return the advance money to the girl which she had given during agreement of the rental flat and deposited Rs. 25,000/- on 16th November, 2012, Rs. 1 lac on 21.11.2012, Rs. 25,000/- on 22.11.2012, Rs. 25,000/- on 07.01.2013, Rs. 25,000/- on 09.01.2013, Rs. 25,000/- on 17.01.2013 and Rs. 25,000/- on 06.02.2013, total Rs. 2,50,000/- in A/c No. 10352607033 of the complainant. He was informed on 15th February 2013 that the complainant's daughter did not want to marry his son. Email was sent by her to his son to return the ring and for calculation of the account. Accused requested the complainant to return two cheques which he refused. Thereafter legal notice was issued under Section 80 of the CPC with a demand of Rs. Email was sent by her to his son to return the ring and for calculation of the account. Accused requested the complainant to return two cheques which he refused. Thereafter legal notice was issued under Section 80 of the CPC with a demand of Rs. 11 lacs which he replied on 13th March 2013 stating that he had done the expenses for arrangement of the marriage. 8. In the light of the allegations in the complaint and the evidence on record the learned trial Court came to the finding that the ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act have not been made out. The complainant did not wait for expiry of 15 days' notice from the date of receipt of the reply of the accused on 14th March 2013 and filed the complaint case on 19th March 2013 itself. Further the notice was of an amount of Rs. 11 lacs being the total expenses with interest. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has questioned the finding of the learned trial Court. He submits that if the reply of the accused was of total denial of the claim, the same entails a cause of action thereafter. As such the complainant was not required to wait for 15 days for institution of the complaint. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Madras High Court rendered in the case of Sagaya Arockiya Raj v. Ganesh Kumar Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 18137/2013 dated 7th September, 2016 where the opinion of the Apex Court in the case of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra and another, reported in 2014 (9) SCC 129 has also been relied upon. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the legal notice was a consolidated notice with specific demand of the amount covered under the two cheques which were dishonored. As such the same were permissible. No. specific format has been prescribed under the provisions of N.I. Act. Learned trial Court had also relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Central Bank of India v. Saxons Farms, reported in 1999 SCC (Crl) 1411. Therefore, special leave to appeal may be allowed to assail the finding of the learned trial Court. 10. Learned counsel for the private opposite party has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. Therefore, special leave to appeal may be allowed to assail the finding of the learned trial Court. 10. Learned counsel for the private opposite party has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He submits that the ingredients of the offence have not been duly satisfied by the complainant. Learned trial Court has rightly disbelieved the story set up by the complainant. There was a proposed marriage between the daughter of the complainant and son of the accused which failed for their own reasons The complainant has however sought to bring it in the realm of criminal liability by invoking the provisions of Section 138 N.I. Act. The legal notice failed to fulfill the ingredients to provide notice in the eyes of law. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in K.R. Indira v. Dr. G. Adinarayana, reported in (2003) 8 SCC 300 . He further submits that the complaint was premature. 11. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, gone through the impugned judgment and the discussions of learned trial Court on the evidence on record. 12. Issues relating to facts and law both have been raised in the present matter which in our opinion can be looked into in appeal if special leave to appeal is granted. We however refrain from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case as it may prejudice the case of the parties before the appellate Court. However, we are satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of special leave to appeal. Accordingly, the instant petition stands allowed. Petition dismissed.