Timeliness in filing complaints under the NI Act requires valid reasons, especially when service is deemed based on notice return types.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS MONDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947 CRL.MC NO. 2064 OF 2025 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 01.02.2025 IN CRMP NO.5427 OF 2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,RANNI PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:

HARIKRISHNAN K.G, AGED 42 YEARS KALEEKAL MADATHIL HOUSE, PERUNADU MURI, PERUNADU VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689711 BY ADVS.

SRI.JACOB P.ALEX SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX SHRI.MANU SANKAR P.

SHRI.AMAL AMIR ALI RESPONDENT/ACCUSED:

SARATH MOHAN, CHOORAKULANGARA ROAD, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686631 BY ADVS.SRI.MAHESH V.MENON SMT.RAJITHA V.K SMT.SEETHA.S, SR.PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

08.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Dated this the 08^th day of December, 2025 The petitioner was the complainant in Crl.M.P.No.5427/2024 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ranni (‘Trial Court’, in short), which was filed against the respondent alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , 1881 (‘N.I.Act’, in short).

2. Along with Annexure A1 complaint, the petitioner also filed Annexure A2 petition to condone the delay of 39 days in filing the complaint, on the specific allegation that since the statutory demand notice send to the respondent returned with an endorsement as addressee left, the petitioner made an effort to trace out the address of the respondent. However, he could not trace out the address of the respondent. Consequently, the delay occurred. However, by Annexure A3 order, the Trial Court concluded that since the notice send to the respondent returned with an endorsement addressee left, there was a presumption that the notice has been served on the addressee. Hence, the reason put forth by the petitioner in filing the complaint with a delay of 39 days was unjustifiable and cannot be condoned. Annexure A3 order is patently erroneous and unsustainable in law.

Hence, the Crl.M.C.

3. Heard; Sri.Jacob P Alex, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Mahesh V Menon, the learned Counsel for the respondent.

4. The short point that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner has stated sufficient reasons to condone the delay in filing Annexure A1 complaint.

5. It is not in dispute that the complaint was filed with a delay. Although, the petitioner had calculated the delay as 39 days, the Trial Court found that the delay was 31 days. In order to condone the delay, the petitioner filed Annexure A2 petition under Section 142 (1)(b) of the NI Act, stating in the affidavit filed in support of the delay petition that, as the statutory demand notice send to the respondent returned with an endorsement as ‘addressee left’, the petitioner made an effort to locate the whereabouts of the respondent. It was in the above circumstances that the delay in filing the complaint had occurred.

6. The Trial Court, by Annexure A3 order, concluded that, as the notice had returned with an endorsement ‘addressee left’, it is deemed service of notice. This, according to me, is erroneous. It is only when a notice returns with an endorsement ‘refused’ or ‘unclaimed’, it is deemed service of notice.

7. The reasons put forth by the petitioner in Annexure A2 petition, that since he made an effort to trace out the address of the respondent, as the notice had returned with an endorsement addressee left, he could not file the complaint on time, is satisfactory and sufficient to condone the delay in filing the complaint. The finding in the impugned order is hyper-technical and pedantic. Thus, I am convinced and satisfied that this is a fit case to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Secti