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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 53827

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
NIJAMOL NAJEEB – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1056 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN, SMT.N.P.ASHA
For the Respondents: SRI.E.C.BINEESH-SR.PP

The court affirmed the decision of the lower court to condone a 105-day delay in filing a complaint under negotiable instruments law.

Headnote:This revision petition was filed challenging the order of the Judicial Magistrate condoning a 105-day delay in filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The court, having heard the parties, determined that the delay, although inadequately explained, fell within the judge's discretion to condone, affirming the lower court's decision. The key issue revolved around whether the delay should be excused, with the court concluding that it sees no reason to reverse the magistrate's order. The final judgment dismisses the revision petition.

Table of Content
1. review of delay in filing complaint under negotiable instruments (Para 1)
2. judicial discretion in condoning delay (Para 2)

O R D E R

This revision petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Pathanamthitta, condoning the delay in filing a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 .

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

I went through the order. The delay is only 105 days. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the delay has not been properly explained. Even if the delay has not been properly explained, since the delay is only 105 days, the court has the discretion to condone it. I am of the view that the learned Magistrate has exercised the discretion judicially. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed.

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 Back to top