SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006(1) Bankmann 70
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
S. R. Bannurmath, J
Smt. H.M. Namratha — Petitioner
versus
Smt. Jayanthi Prakash — Respondent
Cr.R.P. No. 610 of 2004
Decided on 4.6.2004

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr.K. B. Shivakumar.
For the Respondent: None.

IMPORTANT POINT
Where complainant, a woman had shown prima facie sufficiency of cause of delay of 4 days in filing complaint underSection138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, delayed could be condoned.

Headnote:Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 142B—Dishonour of cheque—Trial Court dismissed complaint only on ground of delay of 4 days in filing complaint—Petitioner—Complainant was a woman and had prima facie shown sufficiency of cause for short delay—Court ought to have condoned delay —Impugned order was liable to be set aside.

       Result: Petition allowed.

       

Order

S.R. Bannurmath, J.— Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is a complainant in P.C.R. No. 12949/03. At the outset, it is made clear that since the plaint filed by the petitioner has been dismissed at the initial stage itself even before issuing process to the accused respondent, hearing of the respondent is not necessary. Since the case can be disposed on short question, the matter is taken for disposal.

3. The complainant/petitioner herein has filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent in respect of bouncing of a cheque. The Trial Court has dismissed the complaint only on the ground of delay of 4 days in filing the complaint. In view of amended provisions of Section 142-B of the Negotiable Instruments Act, taking into consideration, the petitioner is a woman and has prima facie shown sufficiency of the cause for the short delay, instead of sticking to the technicality, the Court below ought to have condoned the delay and consider the complaint on its merits. Instead of doing so, the Trial Court, in my view, has used short-cut method, which is illegal.

4. Hence, the impugned Order dated 31.3.2004 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court to proceed with the case in accordance with law after condoning the delay.

Petition allowed.

*******



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top