Application under Section 482 CrPC sought quashing of a summoning order in a Section 138 NI Act complaint on the ground that service of demand notice was not recited. Relying on Ajeet Seeds Ltd., the Court held service is a matter for trial and rejected the application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:68347
Court No. - 73
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3185 of 2025
Applicant :- Majboot Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Prakash Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
issue as to whether the notice has been served or not, is a matter of trial, which cannot be gone into at this stage.
"10. It is thus clear that Section 114 of the Evidence Act enables the Court to presume that in the common course of natural events, the communication would have been delivered at the address of the addressee. Section 27 of the GC Act gives rise to a presumption that service of notice has been effected when it is sent to the correct address by registered post. It is not necessary to aver in the complaint that in spite of the return of the notice unserved, it is deemed to have been served or that the addressee is deemed to have knowledge of the notice. Unless and until the contrary is proved by the addressee, service of notice is deemed to have been effected at the time at which the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of business.
11. Applying the above conclusions to the facts of this case, it must be held that the High Court clearly erred in quashing the complaint on the ground that there was no recital in the complaint that the notice under Section 138 of the NI Act was served upon the accused. The High Court also erred in quashing the complaint on the ground that there was no proof either that the notice was served or it was returned unserved/unclaimed. That is a matter of evidence. We must mention that in C.C. Alavi Haji, this Court did not deviate from the view taken in Vinod Shivappa, but reiterated the view expressed therein with certain clarification. We have already quoted the relevant paragraphs from Vinod Shivappa where this Court has held that service of notice is a matter of evidence and proof and it would be premature at the stage of issuance of process to move the High Court for quashing of the proceeding under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. These observations are squarely attracted to the present case. The High Court?s reliance on an order passed by a two-Judge Bench in Shakti Travel & Tours is misplaced. The order in
Shakti Travel & Tours does not give any idea about the factual matrix of that case. It does not advert to rival submissions. It cannot be said therefore that it lays down any law. In any case in C.C. Alavi Haji, to which we have made a reference, the three- Judge Bench has conclusively decided the issue. In our opinion, the judgment of the two-Judge Bench in Shakti Travel & Tours does not hold the field any more." .
Order Date :- 1.5.2025 N.S.Rathour
(Vikas Budhwar, J)
Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a complaint lacking a recital of the date of service of statutory demand notice can sustain a summoning order under Section 138 NI Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajeet Seeds Ltd. Vs. K. Gopala KrishnaiahRelied on¶5
(2014) 12 SCC 685 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Majboot Singh
State of U.P.
Vikas Budhwar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
