Statutory notice service is essential in cheque dishonour prosecution; absence of proof of service justifies quashing.

A complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was held not maintainable where the statutory notice was returned unserved and there was no acknowledgment showing service on the drawer. The Court treated service of notice and the consequent opportunity to pay within the prescribed time as a foundational requirement for prosecution, and found that requirement unmet on the facts. It further held that the availability of revision under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 did not bar exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482, so the criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could proceed when statutory notice was not shown to have been served on the drawer; (ii) Whether the proceedings were liable to be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 despite the availability of revision.

Issue (i): Whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could proceed when statutory notice was not shown to have been served on the drawer.

Analysis: The complaint itself disclosed that the legal notice sent by registered post was returned unserved, and the acknowledgment card did not bear the signature of the petitioner or any other acknowledgment. The statutory requirement under the proviso to Section 138 is that the drawer must receive notice and be afforded the prescribed time to make payment. In the absence of service of notice, the foundational requirement for launching prosecution was not satisfied.

Conclusion: The complaint was not maintainable for want of duly served statutory notice.

Issue (ii): Whether the proceedings were liable to be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 despite the availability of revision.

Analysis: The availability of a revision petition under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 did not bar invocation of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482. The Court also held that the cheque-return remark "kindly contact drawer/drawee bank and please present again" did not save the prosecution in the present facts, where the notice requirement itself had failed.

Conclusion: The petition under Section 482 was maintainable and the criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution under Section 138 could not be sustained and the impugned complaint and proceedings were set aside in all connected matters.

Ratio Decidendi: Prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 cannot be sustained unless statutory notice is duly served and the drawer is afforded the statutory opportunity to pay within the prescribed time; absence of such service renders the complaint not maintainable.

---