JUDGMENT : Chandra Shekhar Jha, J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. The present application has been filed for quashing the cognizance order dated 12.10.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Siwan in connection with Complaint Case No. 1619 of 2023, where cognizance was taken for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. While arguing this matter, learned counsel heavily relied upon the legal notice from wherein, it transpires that the compliance of Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 not appears to be followed as demand was not raised for the “said amount” i.e. the amount for which the instrument under dispute was drawn by opposite party no. 2. It is submitted that on this score alone, the entire cognizance order is bad in eyes of law and same be fit to be set aside/quashed. Besides the aforesaid main illegality, it is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that there was dispute between the parties related with their business and deed of partnership as executed between them on 15.10.2019 was not complied with in its true spirit. It is also submitted that the instrument in issue was issued by a company i.e. M/s Harishchandra Builders Pvt. Ltd., a company registered under Compaies Act, 2013 but said company was not made an accused in this case. Notice appears issued to petitioner in personal capacity. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Upasana Mishra Vs. Trek Technology India Pvt. Ltd. reported through 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1740. 4. Mr. D.K. Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 submitted that the firm of opposite party no. 2 is a proprietorship firm and, therefore, the notice was issued in personal capacity. It is pointed out that the firm of petitioner is also a proprietorship firm. Mr. Sinha Further submitted that the demand of Rs. 35 lacs was out of total outstanding demand of Rs. 80,20,000/- and it was so raised to protect the interest of opposite party no. 2 in case of summary suit, if any initiated in future regarding recovery of the aforesaid amount. 5. It would be apposite to reproduce the provision of Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instrument Act, for the sake of better understanding of the position of law. “138. 80,20,000/- and it was so raised to protect the interest of opposite party no. 2 in case of summary suit, if any initiated in future regarding recovery of the aforesaid amount. 5. It would be apposite to reproduce the provision of Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instrument Act, for the sake of better understanding of the position of law. “138. Dishonour of cheque for insufÏciency, 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 insufÏcient 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 1[“a term which may extend to two year”], 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, 2[“within thirty days”] of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheques as unpaid” (C)………….. 6. To understand the factual position, it would be apposite to reproduce the notice as issued by opposite party no. 2 against petitioner for raising his demand of Rs. 6. To understand the factual position, it would be apposite to reproduce the notice as issued by opposite party no. 2 against petitioner for raising his demand of Rs. 35 lacs, same is as :- ^^izs"kd%& foosd dqekj vf/koDrk O;ogkj U;k;ky;] floku ¼fcgkj½ fiu dksM& 841226 }kjk%& latho dqekj firk&Jh izHkqukFk feJk xzke&e/kjh Fkkuk&Hkxokuiqj gkV ftyk& flokuA izsf"kr%& vfudsr dqekj oYn Jh v:.k flag xzke&e/kjh Fkkuk&Hkxokuiqj gkV ftyk&floku izksizkbVj&gfj”kpUnz foYMj izkbZosV fyfeVsM ekStk&e/kjh] Fkkuk&Hkxokuiqj gkV] ftyk&flokuA jftLVªs'ku ua0& 20 AADCH5185K1ZL MkYVsuxat ¼>kj[k.M½ pqWa esjs mijksDr eofDdy latho dqekj us vkidks ;g odkyru uksfV'k Hkstus ds fy, eq>s vf/kd`r fd;k gS%& 1- ;g fd ejss eqofDdy dk dguk gS fd esjs eqofDdy vkSj vkids dEiuh gfj'kpUnz foYMj izkbosV fyfeVsM ds ek/;e ls dyi=q ikoj VªkUleh'ku fyfeVsM MkYVsuxat ls la;qDr :i ls fcfYMax fuekZ.k ds dke djus ds fy, ,d fyf[kr djkj o"kZ 2019 esa gqvkA 2- ;g fd ml djkj ds vuqlkj dyi=q ikoj VªkUleh'ku fyfeVsM MkYVsuxat ds vUrxZr gksus okys dkeksa esa tks Hkh O;; gksxk og nksuksa Hkkxhnkj cjkcj&cjkcj djsaxs vkSj lHkh dkjksckj gfj'kpUnz foYMj izkbosV fyfeVsM ds uke ls gksxk ,oa dyi=q ikoj VªkUleh'ku fyfeVsM MkYVsuxat ls tks Hkqxrku gksxk og gfj'kpUnz foYMj izkbosV fyfeVsM ds [kkrs esa gh vk;sxk ftlesa nksuks Hkkxhnkj dk cjkcj dk vf/kdkj gksxkA 3- ;g fd esjs eqofDdy dk dguk gS fd dyi=q ikoj VªkUleh'ku fyfeVsM }kjk jktgjk LVs'ku fcfYMax ,oa bZ&dsfou dk dke 'kq: gqvk vkSj 2021 esa lEiUu gks x;kA ftldk Hkqxrku dyi=q ikoj VªkUleh'ku fyfeVsM us LVs'ku fcfYMax dk fofHkUu frfFk;ksa esa dqy 11761136- 2 ¼,d djksM+ lrjg yk[k ,dlB gtkj ,d lkS Nrhl :i;k nks iSlk½ ,oa b&dsfou dk Hkqxrku fofHkUu frfFk;ksa esa dqy 5236188-21¼ckou yk[k Nrhl gtkj ,d lkS vBklh :i;k bDdhl iSlk½ ;kuh dqy Hkqxrku 16997324-41 ¼,d djksM+ mugrj yk[k lurkuos gtkj rhu lkS pkSchl :i;k ,drkyhl iSlk½ gjh'kpUnz fcYMj izkbZosV fyfeVsM ds [kkrs esa fd;kA 4- ;g fd esjs eqofDdy dk dguk gS fd dyi=q ikoj VªkUleh'ku fyfeVsM us tc&tc vkids dEiuh gjh'kpUnz fcYMj izkbZosV fyfeVsM ds uke ij Hkqxrku fd;k rc esjs eqofDdy ls fglkc djus dks dgk rc vki ;g dg dj dh vHkh dke ckdh gS dke iqjk gks tk;sxk rc fglkc gksxk Vky fn;k djrs FksA 5- ;g fd ejss eqofDdy us dke [kRe gks tkus ds ckn vkils fglkc djus dh ckr dgh rks vki vkt&dy dj Vky nrss FksA bl ckr ij esjs eqfDdy dks cgqr gSjkuh gksrh FkhA bl ckr dks tc esjs eqofDdy us vius ?kj okyksa ,oa xkao ds yksxksa ls dgk rc yksxksa ds dgus ij vkius Hkkxhnkjh esa fd, dk;Z dk fglkc&fdrkc fd;k ftlesa ls esjs eqofDdy dk ml fnu rd dk fglkc 8020000@&¼vLlh yk[k chl gtkj :i;k½ dk fglkc vk;k tks vkidks esjs eqofdy dks nsus FksA 6- ;g fd esjs eqofDdy dk dguk gS fd vkius ;g dg dj dh vHkh iSlk ugha gS eSaus og iSlk dgh vkSj yxk fn;k gS ckn esa nasxs vkSj iSlk nsus ds fy, le; ekaxrs jgAs esjk eqofDdy Hkh vkidh ckrksa ,oa >klak esa vkdj vkidks le; nrsk x;kA 7- ;g fd tc esjs eqofDdy dks ilSk dh vR;ra t:jr iM+h rks og dqN yksxksa dks ysdj vkids ikl x;k vkSj vkils vujqks/k fd;k dh eq>s esjs fgLls dk iSlk ns nhft, eq>s t:jr gSA rc vkius dqy rhu fdLrksa esa dqy jde dks nsus dks Lohdkj fd;k rFkk igyk fdLr&3500000@&¼iSrahl yk[k :i;k½ dks psd vkius esjs eqofDdy dk fn;k vkSj ckdh fdLr nsus ds fy, ,d le; fy;kA esjs eqofDdy us vkids ckrksa dks fo'okl dj vkidks fQj le; fn;k vkjS vkids }kjk fn;k x;k psd fnukad&11-05-2023 dks vius HDFC cSad [kkrs esa tek fd;kA 8- ;g fd ejss eqofDdy dk dguk gS fd 12-05-2023 dks HDFC cSad ds }kjk mldks lqpuk feyh dh mlds }kjk Mkyk x;k psd QaM dh deh (Funds Insufficient) ds dkj.k vekU; gks x;kA 9- ;g fd esjs eqofDdy us bldh lqpuk vkidks fn;k rks vkius fQj ls ogha psd 3500000@& ¼iSrahl yk[k :i;k½ dk Mkyus dks cksyk vkjS cksyk fd vc esjs [kkrs esa iSlk gS vc vki fudky ldrs gSa esjs eqofDdy us vkids }kjk fn;k gqvk fnukad&26-06-2023 dk psd vius HDFC ds [kkrs esa Mkyk vkSj og Hkh 27-06-2023 dks HDFC cSad ds }kjk QaM dh deh (Funds Insufficient) dg dj vekU; dj fn;k x;kA 10- ;g fd esjs eqofDdy dk dguk gS fd vc vki uk gh feyrs gSa vkSj uk gh vktrd mlds fgLlk dk iSlk ugha fn, vkSj tkucq>dj xyr psd nsdj jde gM+i fy, gSA 11- ;g fd ejss eqofDdy dk dguk gS fd vkids O;ogkj ls ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd vki mldk dqy jde eks0 8020000@& ¼vLlh yk[k chl gtkj½ :Ik;k gM+Ik tkuk pkgrs gSa tks ljklj /kks[kk/kMh+ ,oa vekur esa [;kur gS vkSj vkids dEiuh ds lkFk gq, djkj ,oa 'krksZa ds foijhr Hkh gSA vr% ctfj;s bl odkyru uksfVl vkidks vkxkg fd;k tkrk gS fd vki bl uksfVl ds 15 fnuksa ds vUnj esjs eqofDdy dh dqy jde eks0& 8020000@& ¼vLlh yk[k chl gtkj :i;k½ dk lqn lfgr ,d eqLr Hkqxrku dj noss vU;Fkk ck/; gksdj esjs eqofDdy dks U;k; gsrq U;k;ky; dh 'kj.k esa tkuk iMs+xk ftlls leLr [kpsZ dh tokcnsgh vkidh gksxhA bls l[r rkdhn le>sA bl odkyru uksfVl dh ,d izfr lkFk odkyrukek ,oa leLr dkxtkr ejss dk;kZy; esa vfxze dk;Zokgh gsrq lqjf{kr j[kk tkrk gSA Hkonh; g0@& foosd dqekj vf/koDrk O;ogkj U;k;ky; flokuA** 7. It would be further apposite to reproduce the para nos. 7 and 8 of the Upasana Mishra’ case (supra). “7. The last paragraph in Annexure-P2 notice carries the demand and we will refer to the demand made thereunder. It read, thus: “9. ……………………………………….. ………………………………………………… I, therefore through this legal notice call upon you to make the party of the doubt amount of the cheque i.e. Rs. 6,50,000/- (Rs. Six Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) with interest @12% per annum since 12.11.2013 and further pay the damaged at Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) per month within stipulated period from the receipt of this notice failing which I have clear instructions from my aforesaid clients to take legal action against you in the competent courts, holding you responsible for entire cost and consequences with litigation charges of Rs. 5,500/- (Rs. Five Thousand Five Hundred Only) as charges of this notice. Copy of this kept for further reference.” (Emphasis added) 8. A scanning of Annexure-P2 notice would reveal that an omnibus demand for Rs. 6,50,000/- was made in addition to the demand for interest @12 per annum since 12.11.2013, the date of returning of the cheque, Rs. 50,000/- towards damages and Rs. 5,500/- as notice charge. The demand is omnibus as relates the amount of Rs. 6,50,000/ - as admittedly, it is not the cheque amount and in addition under Annexure P-2- notice, interest @12% per annum from 12.11.2013, damages at Rs. 50,000/- per month and Rs. 5,500/- as notice charge were also demanded. Such circumstances discernible from the demand notice on application of the law laid by this Court in the case of Suman Sethi (supra), would make Annexure-P2 notice of demand invalid. Hence, we are of the view that the impugned order invites interference. In that view of the matter, the Appeal stands allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 13.04.2023 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in CRMC No. 2528/2023 stands set aside and as a necessary sequel, the summoning order dated 19.01.2016 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, NI Act 02, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi shall also stand quashed.” 8. It appears from the notice dated 26.07.2023, as issued by opposite party no. 2, against petitioner that it nowhere suggest that any demand qua Rs. 35 lacs, which is the amount of dishonoured instrument as drawn on Bank of Baroda dated 11.05.2023 bearing no. It appears from the notice dated 26.07.2023, as issued by opposite party no. 2, against petitioner that it nowhere suggest that any demand qua Rs. 35 lacs, which is the amount of dishonoured instrument as drawn on Bank of Baroda dated 11.05.2023 bearing no. 00154 was raised. Notice is even silent regarding any description of instrument which is the subject matter of present proceedings. 9. From the bare perusal of para-11 of the notice (running from page 32 to 35), it transpires that the demand was raised for Rs. 80, 20,000/- with interest, which is not the “said amount” in terms of Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instrument Act as discussed above. This case further appears fully covered by the ratio as available to this Court thorough Upasana Mishra Case ( supra ), accordingly, impugned order of cognizance dated 12.10.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Siwan in connection with Complaint Case No. 1619 of 2023, is hereby set aside and quashed qua petitioner with all its consequential proceedings. 10. Let copy of this order be sent to the trial court, without delay.