A, a resident of Delhi, came to Jaipur and borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from B. To repay the said loan, A gave to B a cheque to be drawn on the Indian Bank, New Delhi. B deposited the said cheque with his banker. The Indian Bank dishonoured and returned the said cheque on the ground of insufficiency of amount in the account of A. B gave a registered legal notice to A but the same was returned by the postal department with the remark that the addressee had left the house. Draft a complaint on behalf of B in the light of above-mentioned facts and other relevant facts and legal provisions.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, FIRST CLASS, JAIPUR

Complaint No. of 20____

In the Matter of:

Shri B, son of , resident of , Jaipur, Rajasthan.

— Complainant

Versus

Shri A, son of , resident of , New Delhi.

— Accused / Drawer

Complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

The complainant, Shri B, most respectfully states as under:

1. That the complainant, Shri B, is a resident of Jaipur, Rajasthan, and is engaged in (describe occupation or business). The accused, Shri A, is a resident of New Delhi and was known to the complainant in a personal capacity.

2. That sometime in the month of , 20___, the accused, Shri A, came to Jaipur and approached the complainant, Shri B, with a request for a personal loan of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only). The complainant, reposing trust and confidence in the accused, advanced the said sum of Rs. 10,000/- as a friendly loan to the accused. The said loan amount constitutes a legally enforceable debt and liability within the meaning of the Explanation to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

3. That in order to repay the aforesaid loan, the accused, Shri A, issued and handed over to the complainant a cheque bearing Cheque No. , dated , drawn on Indian Bank, New Delhi Branch, for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only), duly signed by him in his own hand. At the time of issuing the said cheque, the accused represented and assured the complainant that the said cheque would be duly honoured upon presentment to the bank.

4. That the complainant, acting on the said representation and promise, deposited the aforesaid cheque with his banker, namely Bank, Branch, Jaipur, for collection. The said cheque was duly presented for payment to the Indian Bank, New Delhi — the drawee bank — through banking channels.

5. That to the utter shock and dismay of the complainant, the said cheque was returned unpaid by the Indian Bank, New Delhi, on , vide Returning Memo No. dated , with the endorsement "Insufficient Funds" — meaning that the amount of money standing to the credit of the accused's account was insufficient to honour the cheque. The complainant received the said Returning Memo along with the dishonoured cheque from his banker on .

It is respectfully submitted that all conditions precedent under the proviso to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, are fully satisfied — the cheque was presented within six months from the date it was drawn and well within its period of validity.

6. That upon receiving information of the dishonour of the cheque, the complainant, through his counsel, caused a statutory legal notice in writing to be issued to the accused, Shri A, at his residential address in New Delhi, by Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due (RPAD), on _ — that is, within thirty days of the receipt of information regarding the return of the cheque, as required by clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The said notice clearly demanded payment of Rs. 10,000/- within fifteen days of its receipt, and expressly stated that the cheque had been dishonoured for insufficiency of funds and that failure to pay within the stipulated time would render the accused liable to prosecution under Section 138 of the Act.

7. That the said registered notice was returned undelivered by the Postal Department with the remark "Addressee has left the house / Addressee not found." The said envelope bearing the postal endorsement is in the possession of the complainant and is produced herewith.

It is most respectfully submitted that in law, the service of a notice by Registered Post is deemed sufficient even if it is returned undelivered. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 provides that service by registered post is deemed to be effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post. Moreover, under Section 94 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, it is expressly provided that if a notice sent by post is duly directed and sent and miscarries, such miscarriage does not render the notice invalid.

The Supreme Court of India settled this question authoritatively in C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed & Anr. (2007) 6 SCC 555, where it was held that once a notice is sent by registered post at the correct address of the drawer, the service is deemed complete and the drawer cannot take advantage of his own act of evading service. The Court observed that if the notice is returned because the accused was deliberately avoiding service or had vacated the premises to evade legal liability, the drawer would still be deemed to have received the notice. A drawer who has deliberately left his premises to evade the notice cannot escape the criminal liability under Section 138 by pleading non-receipt.

Similarly, in Sadanandan Bhadran v. Madhavan Sudhakaran (1998) 6 SCC 514, the Supreme Court held that the cause of action under Section 138 accrues upon the failure of the drawer to make payment within fifteen days from the date of receipt — or, where service is evaded, upon deemed receipt — of the notice.

It is therefore respectfully submitted that, on the facts of this case, the notice shall be deemed to have been duly served on the accused within the prescribed period, and the accused, having failed to make payment within fifteen days thereof, has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act.

8. That the accused, Shri A, has failed, neglected, and refused to pay the sum of Rs. 10,000/- or any part thereof to the complainant either within the stipulated period of fifteen days after the deemed service of the notice, or at any time thereafter.

9. That the cheque in question was issued by the accused for the discharge, in whole or in part, of his legally enforceable debt and liability towards the complainant. Under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the said cheque was issued for the discharge of a debt or liability. Further, under Section 140 of the Act, it is not a defence that the accused had no reason to believe, at the time of issuing the cheque, that the cheque might be dishonoured.

10. That the accused issued the cheque knowing full well that the amount standing to the credit of his account at the Indian Bank, New Delhi, was insufficient to honour the same. By issuing such a cheque and obtaining the benefit of the loan, the accused has acted in a malafide and dishonest manner.

11. That the accused has thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and is liable to be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, i.e., up to Rs. 20,000/-, or with both.

12. That this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to try the present complaint. Since B deposited the cheque with his bank in Jaipur for collection through his account, and the cheque was delivered for collection through the branch of the payee's bank situated at Jaipur, this Court, being a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class at Jaipur, has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter as per sub-section (2) of Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. No court inferior to a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class can try this offence, as mandated by clause (c) of Section 142.

13. That the complaint is filed well within the period of one month from the date on which the cause of action arose, i.e., on the expiry of fifteen days from the deemed date of service of the demand notice upon the accused, as required by clause (b) of Section 142 of the Act.

Prayer

It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

(i) Take cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, committed by the accused, Shri A;

(ii) Issue summons to the accused at his address at New Delhi, directing his appearance before this Hon'ble Court;

(iii) Try and convict the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and award appropriate punishment including imprisonment and/or fine;

(iv) Direct the accused to pay compensation to the complainant, along with interest, as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court; and

(v) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem just, proper, and equitable in the circumstances of the case.

Verification

I, Shri B, the complainant above-named, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath that the contents of the above complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, belief, and information, and that nothing material has been concealed or suppressed.

Verified at Jaipur on this day of , 20____.

Complainant: Shri B
*(Signature)*

Through:
Advocate:
Enrollment No.:
Address:

List of Documents

1. Original Cheque No. dated , drawn on Indian Bank, New Delhi, for Rs. 10,000/-

2. Returning Memo No. dated , issued by Indian Bank, New Delhi

3. Copy of the statutory legal notice dated _

4. Postal receipt evidencing despatch of notice by Registered Post A.D.

5. Returned envelope bearing the Postal Department's endorsement — "Addressee has left the house"

6. Vakalatnama

A Note on the Law: When Notice Returns Unserved

A question of considerable practical importance arises on the facts of this case — what happens when the demand notice sent by registered post is returned undelivered with a remark such as "addressee has left"? Does it defeat the complainant's case?

The answer is clearly in the negative. Section 94 of the Negotiable Instruments Act expressly provides that if a notice duly directed and sent by post miscarries, such miscarriage does not render the notice invalid. Furthermore, Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 creates a statutory presumption that service by registered post is complete at the time at which the letter would ordinarily be delivered. The Supreme Court in C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed (2007) confirmed that a complainant who sends the notice to the correct address by registered post has fully discharged his duty under the proviso to Section 138. The drawer cannot shield himself behind his own act of evading receipt. The fifteen-day period for payment begins to run from the date of deemed service, and failure to pay within that period triggers the offence under Section 138 of the Act.

This design reflects the legislative intent — that the provisions of Chapter XVII must be given meaningful effect and not be reduced to a dead letter by allowing a dishonest drawer to escape simply by abandoning his address.