BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.12.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ CRL.RC(MD)NO.1084 OF 2025 and CRL.M.P(MD)No.10895 of 2025 P.Suresh Kumar : Petitioner/Respondent/Accused .vs.

Vinoth Kumar :Respondent/Petitioner/Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 438 r/w Section 442 of BNSS to call for the records and set aside the order made in Crl.M.P.No.1200 of 2024 in STC.No. Unnumbered of 2025, dated 21.7.2025, on the file of learned Judicial Magisttate(FAC), Fast Track Court, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District For Petitioner :Mr.J.Jeevin For Respondent :Mr.R.Murugan

O R D E R

**********

Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the order of Judicial Magistrate(FAC), Fast Track Court, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District in Crl.M.P.No.1200 of 2024 in STC.No. Unnumbered of 2025, dated 21.07.2025 insofar as Judicial Magistrate condoned the delay of 10 days in filing the complaint by respondent by exercising the power under Section 142(1)(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2.Heard learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

3. The only ground on which the present Criminal Revision Case is filed is that the Petition to condone the delay did not contain reference to Section 142(1)(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, instead reference was made to Section 5 of the Limitation Act and Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that power to condone delay in filing compliant under Negotiable Instruments Act is under Section 142(1)(b) of Negotiable Instruments Act. Petition being filed without reference to Secion 142(1)(b) of Negotiable Instruments Act, instead invoking Section 5 of Limitation Act r/w Section 107 of CPC, ought to have been rejected.

5.To the contrary, the learned counsel for Petitioner would submit that proviso to Section 142(1)(b) of Negotiable Instruments Act confers discretion on the Court to take cognizance of complaint filed beyond stipulated period, if sufficient cause is shown in not making complaint within the period prescribed. He would submit that in the impugned order, Judicial Magistrate had recorded that Petitioner suffered from Viral fever and dissentry and only due to the said reason, complaint was not filed within the period stipulated, while condoning delay of 10 days in filing the complaint. He would submit that Section 142(1)(b) confers Judicial Magistrate with discretion to condone delay if satisfied that “sufficient cause” did exist. He would also submit that power to condone delay both under the proviso to Section 142(1)(b) of Negotiable Instruments Act as well as under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is premised on “sufficient cause” being shown for not filing a compliant or an applicaton or appeal within the prescribed period. In any event, he would submit that a careful persual of impugned order would reveal that though petition inadvertently referred to Section 5 of Limitation Act, however, Judicial Magistrate condoned the delay in exercise of his discretion conferred in terms of Secion 142(1)(b) of Negotiable Instruments Act. He would submit that mere mis-quoting or non-quoting of provision might not cause any prejudice to the other side.

6.Having considered the submissions made by both sides, this Court finds that this revision lacks merit for two reasons, (i) Both under Section 5 of Limitation Act and proviso to Section 142(1)(b) of Negotiable Instruments Act, consideration for condoning delay is whether sufficient cause is shown for the delay in filing an appeal or application or complaint within the stipulated period; and (ii) Misquoting of provision by itself may not prove fatal.

Moreso, when in this case, Judicial Magistrate has rightly invoked Secion 142(1)(b) of Negotiable Instruments Act, which confers on him discretion to condone delay in filing complaint beyond the period stipulated, if he is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for th