The court highlighted the necessity of a liberal interpretation of procedural rules to ensure substantial justice in cases of delay in filing complaints.

ORDER

Dated this the 19^th day of November, 2025 The petitioner is the complainant in CMP No.2939/2017 on the file of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur (‘Trial Court’, in short), which has been filed against the 1^st respondent alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘N.I.Act’, in short).

2. The petitioner had filed Annexure A1 complaint along with Annexure A2 application to condone the delay of 18 days in filing the complaint. However, by the impugned Annexure A3 order, the Trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner did not let in any oral evidence to prove the delay. Aggrieved by Annexure A3 order, the petitioner preferred Crl.R.P.No.89/2017 before the IVth Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur (‘Revisional Court’, in short). However, by Annexure A5 order the Revisional Court also dismissed the revision petition confirming Annexure A3 order on the finding that there are no sufficient grounds to condone the delay. Annexures A3 and A5 orders are palpably wrong and erroneous. This Court inSathya Narayanan K.S. v. Preethi and another ( 2015 (5) KHC 679 ) has categorically held that Section 142 (b) of the N.I.Act should be liberally construed so as to give substantial justice to the party. Likewise inAbdurehiman v. Sethu Madhavan ( 2006 KHC 1113 ), this Court has held that there is no necessity to adduce oral evidence in order to condone the delay in filing an application under (b) of the N.I.Act. Hence Annexures A3 and A5 orders may be quashed.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Counsel for the 1^st respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had filed Annexure A1 complaint with a delay of 18 days. Along with the complaint, the petitioner filed Annexure A2 petition to condone the delay of 18 days.

5. The proviso to clause (b) of Sub-Section (1)

of Section 142 of the N.I.Act empowers the Court to take cognizance of offence under the Act, after the prescribed period, if the complainant satisfies the Court that he was precluded from filing the complaint within the prescribed time period, due to sufficient cause.

6. It is the petitioner’s case in Annexure A2 petition that they did not file the complaint within the prescribed time period because the 1^st respondent had approached them and assured to settle the matter. It was on the said belief that the petitioner did not file the complaint within the stipulated time period. Nevertheless, as the 1^st respondent failed to settle the matter, the petitioner was constrained to file the complaint along with Annexure A2 petition to condone the delay of 18 days.

7. The Trial Court, on the finding that the petitioner did not adduce oral evidence, dismissed the said application, which order was confirmed by the Revisional Court.

8. It is settled law that a litigation is to be decided on its merits rather than on technicalities.

9. Moreover in Sathya Narayanan’s case (supra) this Court has held that Section 142 (b) is to be liberally construed so as to ensure that the parties get substantial justice. Also in Abdurehiman’s case (supra), this Court has held that it is not necessary to adduce any oral evidence to prove a delay petition.

10. Taking into consideration the fact that the delay is only 18 days and that a substantial amount of Rs.1,97,000/- is involved in the cheques in question, I am of the firm view that a lenient view is to be taken in the matter, but subject to the condition that the petitioner mitigates the hardship and inconvenience caused to the 1^st respondent by