Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.DIAS, J
HARIKRISHNAN K.G – Appellant
Versus
SUJAMOL K.S – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner filed a complaint under ni act section 138 focusing on procedural delays. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. respondent challenges maintainability based on non-service of legal notice. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court highlights the importance of sufficient reasoning for condoning delays in filing. (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. final decision allows the petition to condone delay under stipulated conditions. (Para 12) |
O R D E R
Dated this the 15th 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 complai
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
