The orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu WP(C) No.3 of 2020 were for the benefit of the complainant to extend the period of limitation for filing cases/complaints during the COVID-19 pandemic.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral). - Challenge in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to the complaint dated 12.10.2020 filed on 21.10.2020, titled 'Manjit Singh Vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited' filed under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act of 1881') registered as Criminal Complaint No.9085, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, UT, Chandigarh as well as the summoning order dated 21.01.2021 (Annexure P-2) along with all the subsequent and consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

This judgment has been divided into the following sections:-

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, cheque for an amount of Rs.1,53,02,122/- dated 16.09.2020 was returned on 17.09.2020, with the remarks 'Funds Insufficient/Dormant Account' and legal notice was issued on 29.09.2020 and the complaint was instituted on 21.10.2020 and the summoning order was passed on 21.01.2021. It is contended that the petitioner is seeking to challenge the complaint and summoning order solely on the ground that as per the Order dated 08.03.2021, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu WP (C) No.3 of 2020 (Annexure P-4), the period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021,was to be excluded in computing the period under proviso (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Act of 1881 and any other law, which prescribed period(s) of limitation for instituting the proceedings. It is further contended that in the said order dated 08.03.2021, reference has been made to the order dated 23.03.2020 which was the first order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Suo Motu WP (C) No. 3 of 2020 extending the period of limitation prescribed under the general law or special law, with effect from 15.03.2020 and it has also been noticed in the Order dated 08.3.2021 that the said Order dated 23.03.2020 was extended from time to time.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that vide order dated 23.09.2021 (Annexure P-5), the period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021, was ordered to be excluded while computing the period of limitation for any suit/appeal/application/proceeding which also included proceedings under Section 138 of the Act of 1881. He has also placed reliance upon order dated 10.01.2022 (Annexure P-6), vide which, the above-said period, which was up to 02.10.2021, was extended till 28.02.2022. It is further contended that since period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, stood excluded in computing the period prescribed for instituting the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 and in the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reference had been made to proviso (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Act of 1881, thus, the complaint which was filed on 21.01.2021 i.e., within that excluded period, is premature and cognizance which has been taken during the said period is also illegal and against the said orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and thus, deserves to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Yogendra Pratap Singh Vs. Savitri Pandey and another reported as 2014(10) SCC 713, to contend that in a case where a premature complaint had been filed, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had upheld the order of the High Court quashing the complaint and the summoning order. It is submitted that in the said case, two issues had been framed. First issue was whether cognizance coul