The court emphasized a liberal approach in condoning delays under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, while ensuring fairness to both parties.

O R D E R

Dated this the 15^th day of January, 2026 The petitioner had filed Crl.M.P No.5428 of 2024 before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ranni (‘Trial Court’, in short) against the respondent alleging that she has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘NI Act’, in short).

2. Along with the said complaint, the petitioner also filed Crl.M.P No.5818 of 2024 (Annexure A2) to condone the delay of 39 days in filing the complaint. The petitioner states that, it is only because the petitioner could not trace the address of the respondent, the complaint could not be filed on time. However, by the impugned Annexures A3 and A4 orders, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application and consequently the complaint also. Annexures A3 and A4 orders are ex-facie erroneous and unsustainable in law.

The learned Magistrate has failed to consider the proviso to Clause (b) of Section 142 of the NI Act which empowers the Trial Court to condone the delay. This Court in Areeplavan Financiers, Thodupuzha v. State of Kerala and Another [ILR 2020 (2) Kerala 325] has succinctly held that a liberal approach should be adopted in condoning the delay. Hence, Annexure A3 and A4 orders may be set aside.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates the contentions in the Crl.M.C.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that, even if the delay is condoned, the complaint is not maintainable in law since, admittedly, notice was not served on the respondent. Therefore, going by the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shakti Travel & Tours v. State of Bihar and Another [(2002)

9 SCC 415], the Crl.M.C may be dismissed.

6. The short point that emerges for consideration is whether the petitioner has stated sufficient reasons to condone the delay of 39 days in filing the complaint.

7. In Annexure A2 application, the petitioner has specifically asserted that, it is only because the legal notice that was sent to the respondent returned with an endorsement ‘addressee left’, and the petitioner could not trace the correct address of the respondent, he could not file the complaint within the prescribed statutory time period.

8. Admittedly, the respondent did not contest the application. The learned Magistrate, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the assertions in the application, held that, as the petitioner had taken steps to effect service of lawyer notice on the respondent, there was no legal impediment for the petitioner to have instituted the complaint within the prescribed time period, especially because there is no statutory mandate that the complainant has to find out the address and whereabouts of the accused before instituting a complaint under Section 138 NI Act.

9. While considering an application to condone the delay, the courts are only expected to ascertain whether the applicant has mentioned sufficient reasons to condone the delay. The courts are not bound to go into the merits of the original proceedings.

10. It is also trite law that the court should always make an endevour to dispose of a matter on its merits rather than on technicalities or for default.

11. The contention raised by the respondent that, since notice was not duly served on the respondent, the complaint itself is not maintainable is a matter that is to be decided at the time of trial. Therefore, I am not impressed by the said submission.

12. On an overall cons