Back
SANJAY KUMAR, ALOK ARADHE
S. Nagesh – Appellant
Versus
Shobha S. Aradhya – Respondent
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The appellant, S. Nagesh, challenged an order passed by a High Court judge, which upheld the validity of a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the subsequent cognisance taken by the Magistrate (!) (!) .
The complaint was initially filed by the respondent, Shobha S. Aradhya, alleging that the appellant issued a dishonoured cheque for a sum borrowed for purchasing a house and legal expenses (!) .
The Magistrate initially took cognisance of the complaint on the same day it was filed, despite noting a delay of two days in filing, which was later condoned by the Magistrate after considering her medical condition and the delay’s bonafide nature (!) (!) .
The appellant argued that cognisance could not have been validly taken before the delay in filing was condoned, asserting that the procedure prescribed by law was not followed, and that the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to proceed without first condoning the delay (!) (!) .
The High Court concurred with the Magistrate’s view that the delay was only two days and was properly condoned, and thus, the cognisance was valid, despite the irregularity of taking cognisance before condonation (!) (!) .
The Supreme Court, however, held that the law requires the Court to first consider and condone any delay before proceeding to take cognisance of the complaint. It emphasized that this sequence is mandated to ensure procedural correctness and that taking cognisance prior to condonation constitutes an irregularity that cannot be overlooked (!) (!) (!) .
Consequently, the Court found that the Magistrate erred by taking cognisance of the complaint before condoning the delay, and the High Court’s order refusing to quash the complaint was set aside (!) .
The final decision was to allow the appeal and quash the complaint, effectively dismissing the criminal proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the appellant (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice based on this case.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 28.06.2024 passed by a learned Judge of the Karnataka High Court in Criminal Petition No. 9119 of 2018. This petition was filed by S. Nagesh, the appellant before us, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking the quashing of the complaint in PCR No. 3144 of 2013, which was converted as CC No. 1439 of 2014 on the file of the learned I Additional I Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class at Mysore1[For short, ‘the learned Magistrate’]. The learned Judge rejected the petition, holding that the delay of two days in the filing of the complaint was bonafide and cognizance had rightly been taken.
3. In her complaint in PCR No. 3144 of 2013, Shobha S. Aradhya, the respondent, averred as follows: The appellant had approached her husband and her, seeking financial assistance to purchase a house and to meet legal necessities. They lent him a sum of ?5,40,000/- between the dates 27.01.2010 and 26.07.2010. He, thereafter, issued cheque dated 10.07.2013 drawn in her name for the said sum, assuring that it would be honoured upon presentation. However, the cheque was dishono
(1) Cognizance of offence – Power conferred upon Court to take cognizance of a belated complaint is subject to complainant first satisfying Court that he had sufficient cause for not making complaint....
A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be maintained if filed beyond the limitation period without a condonation application. Interference in acquittals requires stric....
The court emphasized a liberal approach in condoning delays under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, while ensuring fairness to both parties.
The court can condone delays in filing complaints under the Negotiable Instruments Act if satisfied with a sufficient cause, assessing the substance of justice over technicalities.
Delay in filing a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act can be condoned if satisfactorily explained and not deliberate or malafide.
A complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act must be filed within the statutory limitation, and failure to comply with Section 142(b) regarding delay results in dismissal.
Point of law:Delay in filing complaint – Notice - When there is a delay in filing the complaint, necessarily the complainant will file an application for condonation of delay. When such application i....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
