Back
Karnataka High Court
Hon'ble S. R. Bannurmath, J.
Cr. R. P. No. 610 of 2004
Decided on 4.6.2004
Smt. H. M. Namratha
versus
Smt. Jayanthi Prakash
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act - Delay in filing complaint - Sufficiency of cause for short delay
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent for bouncing of a cheque. The Trial Court dismissed the complaint due to a 4-day delay in filing.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Trial Court should have condoned the delay and considered the complaint on its merits, especially considering the petitioner's gender and prima facie sufficiency of cause for the short delay.
Issues: Delay in filing the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that, in light of amended provisions of Section 142-B of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the petitioner being a woman, the Trial Court should have condoned the delay and considered the complaint on its merits instead of dismissing it based on a technicality.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Trial Court to proceed with the case in accordance with law after condoning the delay.
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 as 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.
AI
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
