1) Pls note that a bounced chq in which one has missed out to serve notice u/s 138 within 30 days of receipt of information of chq bounce, can be re-presented through bank again. If the chq is bounced for the 2nd time, you have 30 days to serve notice u/s 138, from the day the receipt of information of 2nd time chq bounce. This is true only if the chq is within validity, i.e., if the chq is presented for payment within 3 months of the chq date. So, if you are talking of the same chq here, you can represent the chq again if 3 months has not expired, and if it gets bounced, you have time afresh.
2) I think delay in your case for filing case u/s 138 will be condoned, since the delay is caused due to the post offcie. Further, the drawer of a chq cannot plead innocence on the basis of non-receipt of notice. In Alavi Haji vs. Palapetty Muhammed and Anr - By Hon'ble Supreme Court of India - Date of Judgment - 18.5.07, the Court held that "We cannot also lose sight of the fact that the drawer may by dubious means manage to get an incorrect endorsement made on the envelope that the premises has been found locked or that the addressee was not available at the time when postman went for delivery of the letter. It may be that the address is correct and even the addressee is available but a wrong endorsement is manipulated by the addressee. In such a case, if the facts are proved, it may amount to refusal of the notice. If the complainant is able to prove that the drawer of the cheque knew about the notice and deliberately evaded service and got a false endorsement made only to defeat the process of law, the Court shall presume service of notice. This, however, is a matter of evidence and proof. Thus even in a case where the notice is returned with the endorsement that the premises has always been found locked or the addressee was not available at the time of postal delivery, it will be open to the complainant to prove at the trial by evidence that the endorsement is not correct and that the addressee, namely the drawer of the cheque, with knowledge of the notice had deliberately avoided to receive notice. Therefore, it would be pre- mature at the stage of issuance of process, to move the High Court for quashing of the proceeding under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."
Concluding remarks of the Supreme Court: "It is also to be borne in mind that the requirement of giving of notice is a clear departure from the rule of Criminal Law, where there is no stipulation of giving of a notice before filing a complaint. Any drawer who claims that he did not receive the notice sent by post, can, within 15 days of receipt of summons from the court in respect of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, make payment of the cheque amount and submit to the Court that he had made payment within 15 days of receipt of summons (by receiving a copy of complaint with the summons) and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be rejected.A person who does not pay within 15 days of receipt of the summons from the Court along with the copy of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, cannot obviously contend that there was no proper service of notice as required under Section 138. In the instant case, the complainant issued lawyer's notice and the same was returned saying that the accused was 'out of station'. We are of the view that on facts in hand the requirements of Section 138 of the Act had been sufficiently complied with and the decision of the High Court does not call for interference."