1. The facts, in brief, are that one complaint has been filed by the respondent against the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and under section 420 of IPC. Cognizance under section 138 of the Act has only been taken against the petitioner vide order dated 25th February, 2002. On perusal of the complaint, it appears that the same has been filed by his Advocate putting his initials only and without the signatures of the respondents/complainant. One application dated 17th October, 2003 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under section 245 of CrPC for quashing the complaint on the ground that the same has been filed without the signatures of the complainant. Vide reply dated 25th February, 2004, the respondent/complainant has mentioned his willingness to put his signatures on the complaint. Vide order dated 22nd August, 2005, the JMFC, Gwalior has observed that he has already taken cognizance, hence, he cannot go behind his own order. It is also observed that the objection will be considered at the time of final hearing. Feeling aggrieved, criminal revision No. 224/05 was preferred by the petitioner which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 14.11.2005 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior with the observation that the learned Magistrate has not passed a final order on the dispute. However, the learned Judge has referred a judgment of Bombay High Court in Vijay v. Ramchandra [2003 (1) CRJ 144].

2. The only dispute, which requires to be decided by this Court is, that in these circumstance what will be the fate of such complaint which has been filed without signatures of the complainant and thereafter in Court, he offered to put his signatures and mentioned his willingness to cure the defect.

3. The relevant provision of section 142 (a) of the Act goes as under:"142. Cognizance of offences -- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,-

(a) no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under section 138 except upon a complaint. in writing, made by the payee or, as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque;

(b)................

(c)........... .....

(emphasis supplied)

4. As provided there is no dispute that the complaint has been filed by a payee or holder of a cheque in due course. It is also not disputed that the complaint is in writing. The only dispute is that the complaint has been filed without signatures of the complainant. In this regard, it is to be understood that at the time specifying the complaint to be in writing, the legislature did not specify that the complaint will be signed also by the complainant. At the same time, it is also true that it does not mean that the complaint can be filed without signatures or there is no necessity of putting the signatures. But at the same time it is clear that no much stress is provided on signatures. It is also to be kept in mind the object behind introduction of chapter 17 of the Act contending under sections 132 to 142, this chapter was introduced in the Act by the Banking, Public Financial Institution and Negotiable Instruments Law (Amendment) Act, 1988 (Act 66 of 1998) with the object of inculcating faith in the efficacy of banking operations and giving credibility to Negotiable Instruments in business transactions and in order to promote efficacy of banking operations. At the same time Court's ought not to loose sight of the provisions of the Act, providing an iron curtain of period of limitations. That, after dishonour of cheque notice is to be given within a period of one month, if the amount is not paid within 15 days of the service of the notice then again within a further period of one month complaint is required to be tiled. On perusal of the provisions, it does not appear that the time limit can be extended on sufficient reasons by the Courts. Keeping all these aspects in mind and particularly the phr