Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 2279
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
Niutya Gopal - Petitioner
Vs.
Anil Kumar Verma - Respondent
Crl.R.C. No. 1405 of 2011
Decided On : 25-07-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. D. Nagesh Babu, Mr. R. Subramanian
The need for sufficient cause for condoning delay and the limitations on multiple complaints for the same cause of action under the NI Act.
Headnote:
Cr.P.C. - Criminal Revision Case - Sections 397 and 401 - Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 138 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Cr.P.C. Sections 397, 401, 190(1)(a), 156(3), 142, 138; IPC Sections 406, 420, 341, 506(ii) - The court discussed the proper institution of the complaint, condonation of delay, and the legal provisions under Cr.P.C. and NI Act. The court emphasized the need for sufficient cause for condoning delay and the limitations on multiple complaints for the same cause of action under the NI Act.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, seeking to condone a 297-day delay in filing the complaint. The revision petitioner challenged the trial court's order, arguing that it erred in not appreciating the facts and documents and in allowing the condonation of delay.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complaint was properly instituted but with a delay, and that the trial court erred in condoning the delay without sufficient cause being established by the complainant. The court emphasized the need for sufficient cause for condoning delay and the limitations on multiple complaints for the same cause of action under the NI Act.
Issues: Whether the complaint instituted by the complainant before the trial court is proper? Whether the trial Court is correct in condoning the delay?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complaint was properly instituted but with a delay, and that the trial court erred in condoning the delay without sufficient cause being established by the complainant. The court emphasized the need for sufficient cause for condoning delay and the limitations on multiple complaints for the same cause of action under the NI Act.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Case is allowed, and the impugned order condoning the delay of 297 days is set aside.
This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order dated 29.07.2011 passed by the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.673 of 2011.
2. The respondent is complainant before the trial Court and he has filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), along with a petition to condone the delay of 297 days in filing the complaint and the same was allowed by the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. As against the said order, the present criminal revision case is preferred by the revision petitioner/accused.
3. The summary of facts leading to the filing of the above revision are as follows:-
(i) The respondent herein/complainant has filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.673 of 2011 to condone the delay of 297 days in filing the complaint under Section 138 of the Act against the revision petitioner herein/accused.
(ii) The respondent herein/complainant stated that he has deposited a cheque alleged to have been given by the petitioner on 12.05.2010 and on bouncing, the respondent herein issued a statutory notice on 25.05.2010, for which, the revision petitioner has sent a reply on 21.06.2010 stating that there is no liability towards the cheque and denied the various allegations contained in the notice. Thereafter, it seems that the respondent has proceeded to once again present the cheque on 20.10.2011 and on its return, he has sent another legal notice dated 09.11.2010 under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, by suppressing the earlier facts and issuance of statutory notice dated 12.05.2010. It seems that the respondent herein has preferred a complaint on 21.10.2010 under Section 190(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. for the alleged offences under Sections 406 and 420 r/w.341 and 506(ii) IPC before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, praying for a direction to investigate the case under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai, in which, the revision petitioner has filed counter. Thereafter, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, has returned the complaint stating that the complaint preferred by the respondent is purely civil in nature by its adjudication order dated 15.11.2010.
(iii) Again, the respondent herein appears to have moved the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, and filed a petition under Section 190(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. for the alleged offences under Sections 406 and 420 r/w. 341 and 506(ii) of IPC in respect of the second bouncing of the cheque. In the above backgrounds, the revision petitioner herein has moved a petition for anticipatory bail before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, wherein, he was granted anticipatory bail. Subsequently, the case has been closed by the Inspector of Police, CCB Branch as civil in nature. Thereafter, the respondent herein moved a petition in Crl.M.P.No.182 of 2011 on 29.12.2010 to condone the delay of 2 days in filing the complaint under Section 138 of the Act based upon the second dishonour of the same cheque issued under the second notice dated 09.11.2010, wherein, the revision petitioner has filed counter. Thereafter, the respondent has withdrew the complaint and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 02.05.2011. Thereafter, the respondent herein filed another petition in Crl.M.P.No.673 of 2011 for condoning the delay of 297 days in preferring the complaint under Section 138 of the Act for the first cause of action notice dated 12.05.2010. The petitioner has filed counter and the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, has allowed the said Crl.M.P.No.673 of 2011 and condoned the delay and taken cognizance of the case and hence, aggrieved against the condonation of delay of 297 days in filing the complaint under Section 138 of the Act in respect of the first cause of
