The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has clarified that a minor typographical error in a statutory demand notice under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, does not invalidate the entire notice if the overall content clearly reflects the demand for the dishonoured cheque amount.
Justice Rajnesh Oswal, while dismissing a petition filed under Section 561-A CrPC, held:
“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.”
Read also: Justice Arun Palli Sworn In As Chief Justice Of Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court
The petition was filed by Pawan Kumar, who challenged the issuance of process by the District Mobile Magistrate, Kathua, for dishonour of two cheques—one for ₹10 lakhs and another for ₹11 lakhs—issued in favour of complainant Ranbir Singh. The trial court had taken cognizance under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the NI Act. A revision petition filed before the Sessions Judge was also dismissed.
The petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Anil Khajuria, argued that the legal notice issued by the complainant demanded only ₹50,000, which was far less than the actual cheque amount. He claimed that the demand did not meet the statutory requirement under Section 138, which mandates a clear and specific demand for the “said amount” mentioned in the dishonoured cheques.
On the other hand, complainant's counsel Mr. Ved Bhushan Gupta admitted the discrepancy but asserted it was a clerical error in the last paragraph of the notice. He emphasized that the earlier parts of the notice made clear reference to both dishonoured cheques amounting to ₹21 lakhs.
The High Court examined the notice thoroughly and observed that, except for the last paragraph mentioning ₹50,000, the entire notice consistently discussed the dishonour of cheques worth ₹21 lakhs. Justice Oswal concluded that the figure ₹50,000 appeared to be a typographical mistake and did not impact the essence of the notice.
The Court held:
“Unfortunately for the petitioner, it is neither forthcoming from the notice nor from the complaint that the complainant restricted his claim to ₹50,000.”
Read also: Jammu & Kashmir High Court Clarifies MCI Guidelines on Non-Medical Faculty Appointments
The Court also noted that the judgments cited by the petitioner were irrelevant to the current facts and dismissed the petition. It reaffirmed that a minor clerical error in a legal notice cannot override the intent of the notice when its full reading reflects a valid and legal demand under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Case Title: Pawan Kumar Vs Ranbir Singh
