IMPORTANT POINT
The trial Court erred in taking cognizance of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act without examining the complainant and in violation of statutory time limits.

JUDGMENT :

(N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.)

Heard Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Tony Pertin, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the sole respondent.

2. The petitioner, herein, by way of instituting the present criminal petition, has presented a challenge to an order, dated 01.05.2019, passed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lower Dibang Valley District, Roing, taking cognizance in C.R. Case No. 02/2019, against the petitioner, herein.

3. The petitioner and the sole respondent, herein, had executed a memorandum of understanding on 29.09.2018, towards supply of HSD/Diesel in connection with the works involved for the formation cutting work for the execution of two laning of existing Hunli-Anini road as well as to take-over the machineries involved as mentioned in the said memorandum of understanding and accordingly, 5(five) post-dated cheques for payment of the dues, came to be issued by the petitioner, herein.

4. It is submitted that the sole respondent, herein, had taken away the machineries but did not return the cheques so involved. The cheques so involved were for varying amounts and were drawn on Vijaya Bank, Pasighat Branch. It is projected that the cheques, in question, were presented for clearance. However, the same had bounced on account of insufficient funds.

5. It is projected that the sole respondent in respect of the 2(two) cheques that had bounced i.e. (i). Cheque No. 307350, dated 25.10.2018, amounting to Rs. 20,00,000/- which had bounced on 22.01.2019; and (ii). Cheque No. 920882, dated 15.11.2018, amounting to Rs. 20,00,000/- which had bounced on 16.02.2019; sent a legal notice on 22.02.2019, to the petitioner, herein, demanding payment of the amount involved within a period of 15 days.

6. With regard to the other 3(three) cheques i.e. (iii). Cheque No. 920883, dated 30.11.2018, amounting to Rs. 25,00,000/- which had bounced on 27. 02.2019; (iv). Cheque No. 920884, dated 15.12.2018, amounting to Rs. 25,00,000/- which had bounced on 13.03.2019; and (v). Cheque No. 920885, dated 31.12.2018, amounting to Rs. 31,33,707/- which had also bounced on 13. 03.2019; another legal notice came to be issued by the sole respondent to the petitioner through his Advocate on 29.03.2019.

7. It is seen that the payments involved not being paid by the petitioner, herein; the sole respondent by amalgamating the 5(five) cheques in one proceeding, proceeded to institute a compliant case being C.R. Case No. 02/2019 under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, for commission of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lower Dibang Valley District, Roing.

8. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lower Dibang Valley District, Roing, vide order, dated 01.05.2019, noticing the contentions raised in the said complaint petition being C.R. Case No. 02/2019, proceeded to draw a conclusion that there is material of the commission of an offence under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, and accordingly, proceeded to take cognizance of the 5(five) cheques in the matter. The learned trial Court further observed that since the complainant was not present in the Court on 01.05.2019, the matter stood adjourned to 22.05.2019 for recording the statements of the complainant and witness, if any, under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Having recorded the above; the learned trial Court proceeded to direct for expediting the trial proceedings and in the present case it being a summon procedure; complainant and witness, if any, may like to file the affidavits on or before the next date fixed for hearing. It is further contended by the petitioner that on 19.11.2022 and 16.12.2022, the learned trial Court had issued warrant of arrest against the petitioner, herein.

9. Being aggrieved by the