The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the complainant to file a fresh complaint within one month from the date of decision in the criminal case, and the need to seek the benefit of the proviso and satisfy the court of sufficient cause for any delay in filing the complaint.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Sidhartha Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P appearing for the State and Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of order taking cognizance dated 11.10.2018 including entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 390/2018 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Lohardaga.

3. The complainant has filed complaint alleging therein that the O.P. No. 2 being a partner of a brick kiln namely Sagar Bricks was known to the petitioner from before as the petitioner used to supply coal in the brick kiln to O.P. No. 2. It is alleged that on 04.04.2016 the petitioner requested the O.P. No. 2 to manage a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs as he was in dire need of money and assured the O.P. No. 2 that the said amount shall be returned by the month of June, 2016 else the amount would be adjusted by supplying coal of the said amount in the brick kiln of the O.P. No. 2. It is further alleged that the O.P. No. 2 in good faith gave friendly loan to O.P. No. 2 amounting to Rs. 30 lakhs against the said amount, the petitioner handed over two post dated cheques worth Rs. 15 lakhs each to the O.P. No. 2. It is further alleged that although the time frame for making the payment of the loan amount by the petitioner ended yet he did not pay a single farthing to the O.P. No. 2 for which he was constrained to present the cheque before his bank for clearance. After presentation of the said cheques, both the cheques become dishonoured. Thereafter the O.P. No. 2 sent a legal notice to the petitioner which returned unserved with endorsement (refused to take). Thereafter a complaint petition being Complaint Case No. 221/2016 has been filed under section 138 of N.I. Act in which the petitioner vide judgment dated 02.06.2017 has been convicted and against the said conviction the petitioner moved in appeal before the Sessions Judge, Lohardaga being Cr. Appeal No. 44/2017 and the said appeal was allowed and the judgement of conviction was set aside and the petitioner was discharged from all criminal liabilities. Against the order of acquittal the O.P. No. 2 again moved Criminal Revision which was dismissed as withdrawn by the O.P. No. 2 and after withdrawal of the criminal revision, the present Complaint Case No. 390/2018.

4. Mr. Sidhartha Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the same cheque in question O.P. No. 2 earlier has filed Complaint Case No. 221/2016 which was tried by the learned S.D.J.M., Lohardaga and the petitioner was convicted by judgment dated 02.06.2017. He submits that the said judgment was challenged before the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2017 and the learned Sessions Judge relying on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “ Yogendra Pratap Singh V. Savitri Pandey” reported in (2014) 10 SCC 713 on the ground of pre-mature of filing the petition under section 138 N.I. Act acquitted the petitioner and the petitioner was discharged. He further submits that in the light of Yogendra Pratap Singh(supra) case after disposal of the said case within one month fresh complaint was required to be filed by the complainant however, the complainant filed Criminal Revision No. 1386 of 2017 before this Court and subsequently the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 24.05.2018 with observation that withdrawal of the petition may not prejudice in taking legal recourse by the petitioner and after withdrawal of the criminal revision, the complainant has filed fresh complaint on 04.07.2018. He further submits that in absence of any petition for condonation of delay, the learned court has taken cognizance which is against the mandate of law as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Yogendra Pratap Singh(supra). He submits that on these grounds the entire proceeding is fit to be quashed.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that in the criminal re