Dismissed¶27

Manju Devi v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC13 Jul 2026CR. MISC./75982/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S.138 Negotiable Instruments Act; dishonour of cheque; receipt of statutory notice sine qua non under S.138(b); five ingredients of S.138 offence; cognizance order set aside in revision; quashing application dismissed; Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75982 of 2018; Complaint Case No. 75(C) of 2013, Bhagalpur; Cr. Revision No. 72 of 2016; partnership dissolution agreement dated 05.06.2012; cheque No. 276847 dated 05.09.2012; statutory notice dated 12.12.2012; alleged loss of Rs. 75,000/-; Section 202 Cr.P.C. enquiry witnesses.

What did the court decide?

The complaint rests on a written agreement of dissolution of partnership which was not brought on record, and the dates of the cheques issued are contrary to that agreement. ¶22

Manju Devi Vs State Of Bihar and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Patna HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 30.07.2018 of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, 7th, Bhagalpur in Cr. Revision No. 72 of 2016, setting aside the Magistrate's order dated 19.01.2016, calls for interference in this quashing application. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

No irregularity was found in the impugned order of the Revisional Court; it required no interference.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

The complaint rests on a written agreement of dissolution of partnership which was not brought on record, and the dates of the cheques issued are contrary to that agreement.

¶22

Key takeaways

Receipt of notice by the opposite parties is sine qua non for completion of the offence under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and there is no proof of such receipt on the record.ratio¶22
Five ingredients must be made out to constitute the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act: drawing, presentation, return unpaid, notice to the drawer, and failure of the drawer to make payment after receipt of the notice.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing application dismissed. Challenge to the order dated 30.07.2018 in Cr. Revision No. 72 of 2016, whereby the Additional District & Sessions Judge, 7th, Bhagalpur set aside the Magistrate's order dated 19.01.2016 in Complaint Case No. 75(C) of 2013 under S.138 Negotiable Instruments Act. Held: (i) the written partnership-dissolution agreement underlying the complaint was not brought on record and the dates of the cheques were contrary to it; (ii) receipt of the statutory notice by the opposite parties is sine qua non for completion of the offence under S.138(b) NI Act and there was no proof of receipt; (iii) five ingredients - drawing, presentation, return unpaid, notice to the drawer, and failure of the drawer to pay after receipt of notice - must be made out. No irregularity in the revisional order; application devoid of merit and dismissed. (Praveen Kumar, J)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75982 of 2018

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-75 Year-2013 Thana- BHAGALPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Bhagalpur

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Manju Devi wife of Late Trivikram Prasad, Resident of RBS Road, Mundichak, P.S.- Tilkaamanjhi, District- Bhagalpur.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Bihar and Anr.

¶8

Dilip Jha @ Dilip Kr. Jha, son of Late Raamnand Jha, Resident of MohallaChoti Khanjarpur, Rai Bahadur Surya Praasd Road, P.S.- Barari, DistrictBhagalpur.

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Najmul Hodda, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajendra Nath Jha, APP ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶12

5 13-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶13

APP appearing on behalf of the State.

¶14

The instant application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 30.07.2018 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, 7^th , Bhagalpur in Cr. Revision No. 72 of 2016 setting aside the order dated 19.01.2016 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, XIV, Bhagalpur, in connection with Complaint Case No. 75(C) of 2013.

¶15

The case of the complainant, as set out in Complaint Case No. 74 of 2013, is that O.P. No. 2, namely, Dilip Jha, is the husband of Pushpa Jha, who was engaged in the construction business in partnership with the landlord, late Tri

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75982 of 2018(5) dt.13-07-2026 2/4

¶17

Vikram Prasad, on the basis of a written partnership agreement. After the death of Tri Vikram Prasad, his wife, Manju Devi, succeeded to his interest in the partnership. Upon completion of the construction of the apartment, the intention of the accused persons allegedly became mala fide, whereupon the partnership was dissolved by a written agreement dated 05.06.2012. It is further alleged that, in terms of the said agreement, a cheque bearing No. 276847 dated 05.09.2012 was issued by accused Dilip Jha on behalf of his wife. Thereafter, with the consent of Manju Devi, the said cheque was handed over to her son, Bikram Anand. thereafter with the consent of both the accused persons, the cheque was presented for encashment through the State Bank of India; however, the same was dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds. The complainant has further alleged that a statutory notice dated 12.12.2012 was issued to the accused persons and dispatched by registered post. Despite receipt of the notice, the accused persons allegedly met the complainant and assured that payment would be made; however, the cheque amount remained unpaid. Consequently, the complainant allegedly suffered a loss of Rs. 75,000/-, as the payment was not made within the prescribed period.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75982 of 2018(5) dt.13-07-2026 3/4

¶20

revisional order has not been passed after appreciating the entire facts and materials available on record. The order of learned Magistrate is a well reasoned one and no interference is required in that order. It has further been submitted that upon perusal of the complaint as well as statement of enquiry witnesses recorded under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. goes to show that there was prima facie material to constitute offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused persons. It has further been submitted that learned Magistrate passed order of cognizance against the opposite parties after applying his judicial mind.

¶21

Heard the parties, perused the records.

¶22

The present case is based on a written agreement of dissolution of partnership but the original agreement has not been brought on record and the dates of the cheques issued are contrary to the said agreement. There is no proof to show receipt of notice by the opposite parties which is sine qua non for completion of offence under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶23

It is well settled that five ingredients to constitute offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act should be made out i.e. drawing, presentation, return unpaid, notice to

¶24

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75982 of 2018(5) dt.13-07-2026 4/4

¶25

the drawer and failure of drawer to make payment after receipt of the notice.

¶26

Having considered the facts and circumstance, in totality, this Court does not find any irregularity in the impugned order of the Revisional Court and hence the same requires no interference.

¶27

This application is devoid of merit and accordingly the same stands dismissed.

¶28

(Praveen Kumar, J)

¶29

Ankit Kumar/-

¶30

U T

Manju Devi v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manju Devi v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Irfat Parween Vs Union of India through Cbi, Bihar

Dilip Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Raushan Singh @ Raushan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Gopal Agrawal Vs The State Of Bihar

Damodar Prasad Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Govind Krishna Tripathi and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar