IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 15.06.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

CRL.O.P.NO.1573 OF 2019

M/s. Sri Shanthi Guru Marbles,

Proprieties of Mrs.N.Rekha,

W/o Navin Kumar,

Rep by her power agent, Mr. Navin Kumar,

S/o Gowtham Chand,

No.316/99, Thiruvottiyur High Road,

Chennai – 600 019.

... Petitioner

Versus

M/s Vigneshwara Minerals,

Proprieties of Mr.Ramesh Yadhav,

Father Name not known,

H.No.7-1-510, Mankammathota,

Karim Nagar, Telangana – 505 001.

... Respondent

Prayer:-Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to set aside the order in

C.M.P No.3211 of 2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate,

Thiruvottiyur, Dated 03.09.2018 and direct the lower Court to

take cognizance of the complaint filed in un-numbered STC No. of

2018 pending before the aforesaid Court.

For Petitioner

:

Mr.K.Madhan

For Respondent

:

Mr.V.Selvaraj

Mr.B.Kumarasamy for Intervenor

ORDER

The petition has been filed to set aside the order

passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur, in

C.M.P No.3211 of 2017 Dated 03.09.2018 and direct the lower

Court to take cognizance of the complaint filed in un-numbered

STC No. of 2018.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.The petitioner herein is the complainant who has

preferred a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate,

Thiruvottiyur under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act,

against the respondent/accused with the delay of 240 days.

Hence, petitioner/company filed an application to condone the

delay before the said Magistrate in C.M.P No.3211 of 2017 and

on hearing both sides the learned trial Judge concluded that no

valid reason was assigned for the delay of 240 days and

accordingly, said application was dismissed. Aggrieved by the

same, the petitioner filed this Criminal Original petition.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that,

out of business transaction, the respondent issued four cheques

for a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- dated 26.07.2016, and when the

cheques were presented for collection before the HDFC Bank Ltd.,

Thiruvottiyur on 27.07.20216, the same were returned as “funds

insufficient”. Then, the petitioner issued a statutory demand

notice to the respondent on 02.08.2016, for which the respondent

issued a reply notice dated 26.08.2016, in which he admitted

his liability and made a proposal to settle the matter amicably.

Thereafter, the preferred a complaint under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instrument Act.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner/company

submitted that the petitioner mis-placed their original

documents and the relevant materials. So, they were not able to

file a complaint within a prescribed period as mentioned in

Section 142 (b) of Negotiable Instrument Act. This complaint has

to be filed within one month from the date on which cause of

action arose under clause (c ) of the provisions of Section 138

of Negotiable Instrument Act. Further, he submitted that the

petitioner/complainat filed a petition to condone the said

delay, but, for the above said reason, the application was

dismissed by the trial Judge holding that no sufficient cause

was shown in the petition. Further, he pointed out that,

previously there was business transaction between the petitioner

and the respondent, thus, the petitioner is having valid

materials for invoking the proceedings under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instrument Act proceedings. Hence learned counsel for

the petitioner prayed to set aside the impugned order passed by

the learned trial Judge.

5.The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that

the there is no provision to condone the delay under the

provisions of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Besides, the

reason stated by the petitioner were insufficient. Hence, the

trial Court rightl