IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA th ON THE 6 OF DECEMBER, 2024 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 28446 of 2024 DEVENDRA PRAJAPATI Versus SACHIN DIXIT Appearance:

Shri Vipin Babu Sharma- Advocate for applicant.

Shri Arvind Singh- Advocate for respondent.

ORDER This application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has been filed against order dated 01.09.2023 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjbasoda, District Vidisha (M.P.) in Criminal Revision No.10/2023 by which order dated 10.12.2022 passed by JMFC, Ganjbasoda in UN.CR. No.81/2021 has been set aside and the dismissal of the complaint filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for brevity “NI Act”) has been set aside.

2. Necessary facts, for disposal of the present application, in short, are that respondent has filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on the ground that applicant had given a Cheque No.022563 dated 23.11.2019 for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. The said cheque was presented which was returned back by the Bank on 09.01.2020. Accordingly, first notice under Section 138 of NI Act was issued on 21.01.2020 which was returned back on 28.01.2020 with an endorsement that applicant was not found at the given address. Thereafter, second notice was issued on Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN

01.02.2020 which too was returned back on 04.02.2020 with an endorsement that applicant was not found at the given address. Thereafter, third notice was issued on 28.02.2020 which was returned back on 04.03.2020 with an endorsement that applicant has refused to accept the same. Accordingly, it was contended by respondent that since applicant has not made payment within fifteen days from the date of receipt of notice, therefore, cause of action arose on 19.03.2020 and thus the complaint was filed on 05.04.2021. The Trial Court by order dated 10.12.2022 dismissed the complaint on the ground that cause of action arose when first notice was returned back with an endorsement that applicant was not found at the given address, therefore, cause of action arose on 13.02.2020 as notice was returned back on 28.01.2020. Thus, it was held that complaint should have been filed within a period of 30 days from thereafter i.e. upto 12.03.2020. Since the complaint was not filed on or before 12.03.2020, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable.

Respondent preferred a revision which was registered as Criminal Revision No.10/2023 and III Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjbasoda, District Vidisha (M.P.) by impugned order dated 01.09.2023 has allowed the revision, set aside the order passed by the trial court and remanded the matter back for its decision on merits. While remanding the matter back, it is held that since first two notices were received back undelivered and third notice was issued on 28.02.2020 which was received back on 04.03.2020 with an endorsement that applicant refused to accept the same, therefore, it shall be presumed that notice under Section 138 of NI Act was served on 04.03.2020.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN The complaint was filed on 05.04.2021 whereas according to complainant cause of action has arisen on 19.03.2020. Since nationwide lockdown was imposed within a period of thirty days from 19.03.2020, therefore, complaint could not be filed within thirty days of cause of action. Furthermore, in view of Covid 19 Pandemic, Supreme Court had relaxed the period of limitation and ultimately, by order dated 10.1.2022 passed In Re : Cognizance For Extension of Limitation the Supreme Court had directed the extension of period of limitation in all proceedings before Courts/Tribunals, including the Supreme Court from 15.3.2020 till further orders.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. The first question for consideration is as to when the cause of action arose for the first time?

5. Admittedly, complainant presented the cheque only once which was returned back on 09.01.2020. Supreme Court in