The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for satisfactory reasons and acceptable documents/materials to condone the delay in filing a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, and the compoundable nature of the offense, providing the option for settlement through Mediation Centre/Lok-Adalt.

1. This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, at Tambaram, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.965 of 2017 by order dated 19.07.2017.

2. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has allowed the petition filed by the respondent, under section 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, (in short, “N.I.Act”) to condone the delay of 62 days in filing the complaint under section 138 of the N.I.Act.

3. The Brief facts of the case is that the respondent herein, having suffered with dis-honour of cheque, issued by the petitioners, had approached the Court below, by filing the complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, to take cognizance of the offence and try the same.

4. Statutorily, the said complaint should have been filed within 30 days from the date of cause of action arises under clause (c) of the proviso to section 138. However, according to the respondent, he did not file the said petition within such time of 30 days, as he could not contact his counsel, because of health reason. He was able to contact the counsel only recently. In the mean while, there was a delay of 62 days in filing the said complaint. Accordingly, the said petition was filed to condone the delay of 62 days in filing the complaint.

5. In the said petition, after hearing the petitioner as well as the respondent i.e. Complainant and accused person, the learned Magistrate has allowed the same by condoning the delay of 62 days in filing the complaint. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed.

6. Dr. Fr. Xavier Arul Raj, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, though under proviso to Section 142(1) of the Act, power is vested with the Magistrate to condone the delay, such exercising of power to condone the delay must have been made by the Magistrate only on satisfactory reasons with acceptable documents/materials.

7. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that, even according to the respondent, as seen from his own affidavit, he fell ill and was bedridden and that was the reason for the delay of 62 days. Therefore, he could not contact his counsel to give instructions to file a complaint and only after recovery from illness, he contacted him and therefore, there was a delay of 62 days in filing the complaint.

8. By quoting the said reason given by the respondent for the delay, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that in support of the health reason, as averred in the affidavit, the respondent has not produced any document or certificate, from the Hospital/Doctor that he fell ill for two months and without even verifying or even warranting to produce such documents and satisfying himself as to whether the complainant really fell ill, the learned Magistrate, invoking the power vested in him under section 142 (1) proviso of the Act has allowed the present petition, which according to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is unsustainable.

9. In support of the said contention, the learned Senior Counsel would rely upon the following two judgments. The first judgment he relied is the judgment of Patna High Court, in the matter of Jairam Sharma & Anr Vs State of Bihar another in Criminal M.P.No.20828 of 2007, dated 06.07.2009. The learned Senior Counsel would also rely upon a judgment of Jharkhand High Court, made in the matter of Ghazi Mohammed Masud Alam & another Vs. State of Jharkhand and others in W.P.(Criminal) No.272 of 2002, dated 18.06.2012.

10. By citing the two decisions, the learned Senior Counsel would urge that the order passed by the learned Magistrate, simply allowing the petition to condone the delay of 62 days without any satisfying reason, by invoking the power under section 142 (1) proviso under the N.I. Act, is liable to be interfered with.

11. I have considered the said submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel and also have perused the material placed before me as well as the two judgments cited by the l