In a significant ruling under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that a minor typographical error in a statutory demand notice does not invalidate proceedings for cheque dishonour. The decision came in the case of Pawan Kumar vs Ranbir Singh, where the court refused to quash criminal proceedings involving dishonoured cheques worth Rs. 21 lakhs.
Statutory Notice Must Be Read Holistically: High Court
Justice Rajnesh Oswal, while dismissing a petition seeking to quash the complaint and summoning order, emphasized that a statutory notice under Section 138 of the NI Act must be interpreted in its entirety. A solitary inconsistent figure—clearly a typographical error—cannot override the overall language, tone, and intent of the notice.
“It needs to be noted that the notice is required to be read as a whole, and one solitary word/figure, which ex facie is not in sync with the tone and tenor of contents of the notice, cannot be made use of, to negate the whole purport of the notice,” the bench stated.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a complaint filed by Ranbir Singh under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He alleged that the accused, Pawan Kumar, had issued two cheques—one for Rs. 10 lakhs and another for Rs. 11 lakhs—in discharge of an existing liability. Both cheques were dishonoured upon presentation.
Following the complaint, the trial court issued process against the accused. A revision petition was filed before the Principal Sessions Judge, Kathua, but was dismissed. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the High Court, contending that the demand notice only claimed Rs. 50,000, not the full cheque amounts totaling Rs. 21 lakhs, which rendered the notice defective under Section 138.
Court Recognizes Clerical Error but Upholds Validity
The complainant’s counsel, Mr. Ved Bhushan Gupta, admitted that the figure of Rs. 50,000 in the notice’s concluding paragraph was a typographical error. However, he argued that the rest of the notice clearly referenced the two dishonoured cheques totaling Rs. 21 lakhs, leaving no ambiguity about the actual demand.
Justice Oswal agreed, observing that the demand for Rs. 21 lakhs was explicitly mentioned in the opening paragraphs of the notice. The erroneous mention of Rs. 50,000 in the concluding portion was clearly inconsistent and did not reflect the substance of the demand. The Court held that such an error did not nullify the statutory notice or the legal proceedings initiated on its basis.
Conclusion: Complaint and Summoning Order Valid
Dismissing the petition, the High Court ruled that the minor typographical error did not invalidate the entire legal notice. The court concluded that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any substantial defect in the complaint or notice that would merit quashing the proceedings.
Case Title: Pawan Kumar vs Ranbir Singh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL)