Disposed

Naresh Chelani S/O Late Shri Basant Lal Chelani v. Pavan Bhatia S/O Late Shri Manohar Lal Bhatia

Rajasthan HC17 Nov 2025CRLMP/1837/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused challenged trial court's rejection of his application contending the Section 138(b) notice was issued after the 30-day limitation expired. The High Court held the application at the cross-examination stage was an afterthought since cognizance and charge were never challenged, found no illegality in the impugned order, and disposed of the petition while permitting the point at final argumen

What the court decided

AI extract

Naresh Chelani S/O Late Shri Basant Lal Chelani Vs Pavan… — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:46156]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1837/2019

¶4

Naresh Chelani S/o Late Shri Basant Lal Chelani, R/o Plot No.23, Sindhi Colony, Shanti Path, Raja Park, Jaipur, Raj.

¶5

----Accused-Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Pavan Bhatia S/o Late Shri Manohar Lal Bhatia, R/o Plot No.B29, Flat No.801, White Saffaire, Govind Marg, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur, Raj.

¶8

----Complainant-Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Dinesh Yadav with
	Mr. Mahendra Verma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Vivek Sharma, PP
	Mr. Amit Puri

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

¶11

Order

¶12

17/11/2025

¶13

This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 09.07.2018 passed by Special Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No. 15, Jaipur Metropolitan whereby, the learned Trial Court has dismissed the application under Section 138(b) filed by the accused-petitioner wherein, it was objected that as per Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, drawee of the cheque is required to make demand by way of giving notice within a period of 30 days from the date of dishonour of the cheque. In the instant case, the complainant received information with regard to dishonour of the cheque on 06.05.2016 whereas, the notice was issued on 06.06.2016 irrespective of the fact that the 30 days expired on 05.06.2016 itself. Hence, in view of Section 138(b), no

[2025:RJ-JP:46156]

[CRLMP-1837/2019]

(2 of 3)

legal cause of action has arisen and the complaint could not have been entertained by the learned Court below.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that instead of deciding this issue on merits, the application has been rejected by the learned trial Court by giving the finding that as the petitioner did not raise this point at earlier stages, now, when the trial has proceeded further, no such application could have been moved by the petitioner.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the question with regard to issuance of legal notice within a period of 30 days goes to the root of the matter and can be considered by the Court at any point of time during trial.

¶20

Learned counsel for the complainant opposed the petition and submitted that the order dated 09.07.2018 has been passed by the learned Court below after meticulously examining the material on record as well as law prevailing at the relevant time, and there is no material irregularity or perversity in the impugned order. Since, there was Sunday on 05.06.2016, therefore that day would be not taken into consideration for computing limitation of 30 days, hence, cheque issued on 06.06.2016 was well within the prescribed limitation. Hence, the petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.

¶21

I have heard the rival contentions of counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶22

It has not been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the cognizance taken by the learned Court below as well as the order of framing of charge has not been challenged by the petitioner whereas, the date of issuance of notice was very

[2025:RJ-JP:46156]

[CRLMP-1837/2019]

(3 of 3)

well mentioned in the complaint itself supported by the documents in this regard. Thus, in case, the petitioner was aggrieved either by taking of cognizance by the learned trial Court or by framing of charge against the provisions of the Act of 1881, he had opportunity to do so but instead of challenging the issue at the relevant time, the application filed by the petitioner at the stage when the matter was fixed for cross-examination of complainant is nothing but an afterthought. Hence, the discretion has rightly been exercised by the learned Court below in not entertaining the application at that stage.

¶27

I do not find any material irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the learned Court below, however, the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise this point at the time of final arguments on the complaint.

¶28

In view of above, the criminal misc. petition stands disposed of.

¶29

(ANAND SHARMA),J

¶30

Neeru/49

Naresh Chelani S/O Late Shri Basant Lal Chelani v. Pavan Bhatia S/O Late Shri Manohar Lal Bhatia

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Naresh Chelani S/O Late Shri Basant Lal Chelani v. Pavan Bhatia S/O Late Shri Manohar Lal Bhatia

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suman D/O of Hajari Lal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Allanoor Vs State of Rajasthan

Gangasahay Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Mahesh Kumar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Ramkalyan S/O Devalal Vs State of Rajasthan

Prabhat @ Prabhata and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.