Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.
Vishnupal Singh Rawat – Appellant
Versus
Saurav Kumar Nautiyal – Respondent
C-528 Application No. 80 of 2024
Decided On : 22-07-2024
Challenging - Complaint under N.I. Act - Section 138, 142, 143 - The court interpreted the provisions of the N.I. Act, emphasizing the right to file an application under Section 142 post-remand, and upheld the trial court's decision to condone delay and expedite proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
A complaint was filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, leading to a series of revisions and remands, culminating in the applicant challenging the trial court's order to take cognizance after condoning a delay based on the complainant's circumstances.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court acted within its jurisdiction by allowing the application under Section 142 and condoning the delay, as the reasons provided were satisfactory and justified.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in taking cognizance of the complaint after condoning the delay when the application under Section 142 was filed post-remand.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complainant had the right to file an application under Section 142 after the matter was remanded, and the trial court's decision to condone the delay was justified.
Result: The application was dismissed as devoid of merit.
JUDGMENT :
RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.
1. The instant Application has been preferred under Section 528 of Act No. 46 of 2023 for challenging the order dated 07.02.2024, as well as the order dated 08.02.2024 passed in Complaint Case No. 75 of 2024, Saurav Kumar Nautiyal Vs. Vishnupal Singh Rawat, which is a proceeding initiated on a complaint of the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Uttarkashi. In addition to the aforesaid two orders, the applicant is also challenging the order dated 28.05.2024, passed by the Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi in Criminal Revision No. 11 of 2024.
2. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by the respondent under Section 138 of N.I. Act on 09.05.2023 in which the Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (Junior Division), Uttarkashi took cognizance and the present applicant was summoned.
3. Against the order dated 09.05.2023, a Revision, bearing Criminal Revision No. 17 of 2023 was also preferred by the applicant in the Court of Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi and the same was partly allowed and the order taking cognizance dated 09.05.2023 was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the trial Court to pass fresh order on the complaint preferred under Section 138 of N.I. Act, after taking into consideration the provisions of Section 142 of the N.I. Act.
4. Thereafter, after remand, the respondent/complainant moved an application under Section 142 of the N.I. Act in support of the complaint, wherein he has given reasons that his mother is suffering from cancer and she was under treatment; but, unfortunately, his mother died on 17.05.2023. On the said application/complaint under Section 142 of the N.I. Act, objection was also filed by the applicant. Thereafter, the Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (Junior Division), Uttarkashi, after condoning the delay, took fresh cognizance on the complaint on 07.02.2024 and summoned the applicant.
5. Against the said order dated 07.02.2024, the applicant again preferred a Criminal Revision No. 11 of 2024 in the Court of Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi and the Sessions Court dismissed the said Revision by order dated 28.05.2024.
6. Being aggrieved with the order taking cognizance on 07.02.2024 and the order dated 28.05.2024, whereby the Revision of the applicant has been dismissed, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Application has been preferred.
7. I perused both the orders. As it appears from the order passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi dated 05.09.2023 which was passed in Criminal Revision No. 17 of 2023, the matter was remanded back to the trial Court to decide the complaint afresh after taking into consideration the provisions of Section 142 of the N.I. Act. Subsequently, when the matter was remanded back, the complainant moved an application under Section 142 of the N.I. Act by giving reason that his mother was suffering from cancer.
8. Learned trial Court, after taking into consideration the application, come to the conclusion that the reasons as given in the Application moved by the complainant under Section 142 of the N.I. Act are satisfactory and condoned the delay.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that once the matter was remanded back, then the complaint should be rejected out-rightly because when the complaint was filed, it was not supported with an application under Section 142 of the N.I. Act. He submits that only after the remand order passed by the learned Revisional Court, the respondent/complainant moved an application under Section 142 of the N.I. Act, which is not permissible.
10. The argument as advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant is thoroughly misconceived and since the Revisional Court remanded the matter back, then the complainant has right to move an application under Section 142 of N.I. Act.
11. So far as the reasons as given in the application moved under Section 142 of N.I. Act are concerned, the same are self-explanatory and therefore, the tria
The court affirmed the right to file an application under Section 142 post-remand, emphasizing the importance of justifying delays in filing complaints under the N.I. Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions regarding the condonation of delay in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrume....
Interim compensation under Section 143A of the N.I. Act requires careful evaluation of the complainant's prima facie case and defendant's circumstances.
Dishonour of cheque – Complaint is not maintainable before expiry of period of fifteen days from date of receipt of notice by drawer of cheque – Remedy is to file fresh complaint.
A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not maintainable if filed before the expiry of the statutory notice period, which affects the cause of action.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
