SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(All) 2744

SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV
Ajay Prakash Mishra – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Applicant : Gaurav Tripathi, Praveen Kumar Singh.
For the Opposite Parties : G.A.

Judgement Key Points

What is the impact of filing a Section 138 NI Act complaint beyond the prescribed limitation period on cognizance? What is the effect of minor irregularities in cognizance on the validity of the order in a Section 138 NI Act case? What is the court’s stance on the magistrate’s power to condone delay under Section 142(1) and its effect on quashing a time-barred complaint?

What is the impact of filing a Section 138 NI Act complaint beyond the prescribed limitation period on cognizance?

What is the effect of minor irregularities in cognizance on the validity of the order in a Section 138 NI Act case?

What is the court’s stance on the magistrate’s power to condone delay under Section 142(1) and its effect on quashing a time-barred complaint?


JUDGMENT

Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J.

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash summoning order 17.9.2018 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 02 of 2018 (Vinay Kumar Patel v. Ajay Prakash Mishra) under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument, P.S. Cholapur, District Varanasi, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Varanasi.

2. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the legal notice issued in this case was accepted by the accused on 09.11.2017, however, the complaint was filed on 04.01.2018, therefore, it is argued that, the complaint was filed after expiry of the statutory period and the cognizance taken in this matter without condoning the delay. He next submitted that cognizance has been taken by the Court below on a time barred complaint and as such, the complaint is liable to be quashed. In this connection, reliance is placed on the case of Prem Chand Vijay Kumar v. Yashpal Singh and another, reported in 2005(3) PLJR SC 115, SIL Import, USA v. Exim Aides Silk Exporters, Bangalore , (1999) 4 SCC 567 .

3. Learned AGA for the State opposed the prayer of the applicant and submitted that order of cognizance ca

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top