NI Act | Demand Notice Must Be Read As A Whole, Cannot Be Dismissed Over A Solitary Error: J&K High Court

Dismissing a plea challenging issuance of process for the dishonour of cheques Justice Rajnesh Oswal observed,

“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 proceedings originated from a complaint filed by one Ranbir Singh under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the NI Act, before the District Mobile Magistrate. The complaint alleged dishonour of two cheques for Rs. 10 lakhs and another for Rs. 11 lakhs issued by petitioner Pawan Kumar in discharge of a previous liability.

The trial court had issued process against the petitioner. A revision petition filed before the Principal Sessions Judge, Kathua, was dismissed, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court.

Petitioner through counsel Mr. Anil Khajuria, argued that the statutory notice served by the complainant made a formal demand of only Rs. 50,000, far less than the cheque amounts totaling Rs. 21 lakhs. It was submitted that the legal requirement under Section 138 mandates a specific demand of the “said amount” mentioned in the cheques, and the defective notice thus vitiated the entire complaint.

The complainant's counsel Mr. Ved Bhushan Gupta acknowledged the discrepancy but asserted that it was a typographical error. He submitted that the entire tenor of the notice made clear reference to the two dishonoured cheques totaling Rs. 21 lakhs, and the incorrect figure of Rs. 50,000 appeared only in the last paragraph as a clerical mistake.

Justice Rajnesh Oswal meticulously examined the contents of the legal notice and noted that while the concluding paragraph of the notice mentioned Rs. 50,000/-, the opening paragraphs explicitly referred to the dishonour of two cheques amounting to Rs. 21 lakhs. The figure Rs. 50,000/-, though inconsistent, was treated as a typographical mistake and did not dilute the overall intent and clarity of the demand made in the notice.

Justice Rajnesh Oswal emphasized that a statutory notice under the Negotiable Instruments Act must be read in its entirety, and its validity cannot be undermined by isolating a single word or figure that is clearly inconsistent with the overall tone and substance of the notice.

He observed that such a solitary discrepancy, especially when it appears to be a typographical error and does not affect the core demand or clarity of the notice, cannot be used to nullify the entire purpose and legal effect of the notice.

Ruling that the complaint and the summoning order were valid the bench observed that the minor typographical error in the notice did not render the entire notice void.

“Unfortunately for the petitioner, it is neither forthcoming from the notice nor from the complaint that the complainant restricted his claim to Rs. 50,000/-. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner are not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case.”, the court concluded and dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Pawan Kumar Vs Ranbir Singh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 174

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment