The bench of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker observed that proviso (c), which prescribes the fifteen days period, is to see the bona fide of the drawer of the cheque and is with a view to grant him a chance to make the payment.
It said “The only object of proviso (c) to Section 138 of the Act, 1881 is to avoid unnecessary hardship if the drawer wants to make payment,”
However, it cannot be interpreted to understand that even if the accused refuses to make payment, the complainant cannot file a complaint
The only object of proviso (c) to Section 138 of the Act, 1881 is to avoid unnecessary hardship if the drawer wants to make payment.
Case Title: Ravi Dixit v. State of UP & Anr.
In this case, judgment in N. Parameswaram Unni v. G. Kannan, (2017) 5 SCC 737 can be referred upon.
The court said, It appears that notice was deemed to have been served to the petitioner and he was under an obligation to discharge his liability which he has not done.
Hence, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the well reasoned summoning order passed by the Magistrate.