Presumption of service under cheque law bars quashing where demand notice and address service remain disputed

Criminal complaints under the Negotiable Instruments Act were not quashed because the alleged defect in statutory demand notice turned on disputed facts, including whether the notice was sent to the correct address and whether service was effected. A notice sent to the correct address carries a presumption of service under the General Clauses Act and the Negotiable Instruments Act, but rebuttal and factual service questions require evidence. In proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, such evidence-based disputes are not ordinarily resolved at the threshold, and a legitimate prosecution should not be stifled on a contested notice issue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal complaints under the Negotiable Instruments Act could be quashed on the ground that the statutory demand notices were allegedly sent to an incorrect address and returned unserved.

Analysis: The demand notices were issued in Malayalam and the returned covers showed the notice was sent in the name of the firm at the stated address. Whether the address used was correct and whether service was effected were treated as matters of evidence. The settled rule under the General Clauses Act and the Negotiable Instruments Act is that a notice sent to the correct address carries a presumption of service, and disputed factual questions of this nature are not ordinarily resolved in proceedings for quashment under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The principles governing quashing of complaints also require the Court to avoid stifling a legitimate prosecution at the threshold where the dispute depends on evidence.

Conclusion: The complaints were not liable to be quashed on the ground of defective notice or non-service, and the petitions were dismissed.

---