The amendment in Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act supersedes previous judgments and influences the jurisdiction and refiling of complaints.

JUDGMENT

Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. - Prayer in this petition is for setting aside the order dated 08.01.2016, passed by the trial Court, vide which, the trial Court has dismissed the application for condoning the delay in refiling the complaint which was returned to the petitioner/complainant in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Dasrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. Stated of Maharashtra and another, (2014) 3 RCR(Criminal) 904 , as well as for setting aside the order dated 29.04.2017, passed by the revisional Court, vide which the revision petition, filed by the petitioner, was also dismissed.

2. It is also prayed that in view of the amendment in Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act'), the order dated 30.09.2014, vide which the original complaint was returned to the petitioner for presentation of the same before the competent Court of jurisdiction, be also set aside.

3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner filed a complaint bearing No. 1276 dated 22.10.2012 under Section 138 of the Act on account of dishonouring of a cheque issued by the respondents/accused. During the pendency of this complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patiala, the trial Court, vide impugned order dated 30.09.2014, in view of the judgment in Dasrath Rupsingh Rathod's case (supra), held that since the cheques in question were issued by Gurdaspur-Amritsar Kshetriya Gramin Vikas Bank, Gurdaspur, the Court at Patiala has no jurisdiction to entertain the said complaint and the same along with other original documents were ordered to be returned to the petitioner/complainant for presentation before the competent Court of jurisdiction.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that after filing of the complaint in the year 2012, the original complaint along with other documents was misplaced by the Ahlmad (Incharge) of the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patiala and after long persuasion by the petitioner, the same was traced out on 01.03.2014 and in the intervening period, even the District & Sessions Judge, Patiala has sought explanation from the Court about the missing file and vide order dated 01.03.2014, the trial Court, on receiving a report from the Ahlmad (Inhcarge) that the file has been traced along with original documents, opted to proceed further in trial by giving an information to the District & Sessions Judge, Patiala. Thereafter, notices were issued to respondents/accused and ultimately, the complaint was returned on 30.09.2014.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that till 30.09.2014, respondents/accused were not served despite issuance of non-bailable warrants as they were avoiding the service of summons.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner, thereafter, moved an application on 03.09.2015 for return of the documents and the trial Court, vide order of the even date, observed that though the documents were ordered to be returned on 30.09.2014 but the same was not obtained by the petitioner/complainant within a period of 30 days, however, the file was received by the petitioner on 01.10.2015.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for refiling the complaint after the amendment in the Act which was promulgated on 15.06.2015. However, the trial Court, vide order dated 08.01.2016, dismissed the application by passing the following order:

"..........I have heard the submissions made by counsel for applicant and have gone through the file.

Perusal of file transpires that the complaint titled as Singh Construction Versus Gurpal Singh was filed on 22.10.2012 and same was ordered to be returned as per law laid down in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Versus State of Maharashtra and another dated 01.08.2014 in Criminal Appeal No. 2287 of 2009 on 30.09.2014. Thereafter, application was filed for return of documents on 16.09.2015. Meaning thereby, complainant d