Section 138 notice compliance is mandatory; absence of proof of service and waiting period makes the complaint unsustainable.

Criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act require proof of effective service of the statutory notice and filing only after expiry of the prescribed 15-day waiting period. Mere dispatch of notice by registered post is insufficient where the record does not show actual service, return, or compliance with the statutory timeline before institution of the complaint. On the facts noted, the complainant failed to establish these mandatory pre-conditions, so the proceedings were not maintainable and were liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were liable to be quashed for want of effective service of the statutory notice and non-compliance with the 15-day waiting period.

Analysis: The complaint did not disclose the date on which the notice was actually served or returned, nor did it indicate that the complaint had been filed after expiry of the statutory waiting period. Mere sending of notice by registered post was not sufficient in the absence of material showing effective service or compliance with the prescribed time before institution of the complaint. The Court applied the settled principle that the statutory pre-condition under Section 138 must be satisfied before a complaint can be maintained, and held that the complainant had not shown such compliance on the record.

Conclusion: The proceedings were not maintainable and were liable to be quashed.

---