IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH

th

ON THE 14 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 10156 of 2022 RAMSUNDAR Versus MAHESH Appearance:

Mr. Ritu Raj Bhatnagar - Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Jay Sharma - Advocate for the respondent.

ORDER This Criminal Appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is preferred for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 07.04.2021 in Criminal Case No.2501610/2016 (Annexure-A/1) by the JMFC, Ratlam whereby the respondent has been acquitted from the charges of 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 on the ground that the complaint was premature as the notice was served on 11.06.2016 and the complaint was filed on 21.06.2016.

02. Necessary facts of the case are that a complaint was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ratlam on 21.06.2016 alleging dishonour of Cheque No.363433 dated 01.01.2016 issued by the respondent in favour of the appellant for discharge of liability of Rs.1,50,000/- and dishonour of cheque on 07.06.2016 due to insufficient funds presented through Punjab National Bank, Ratlam. Thereafter, a notice dated 10.06.2016 was issued through RAD mode and the same was served upon the respondent on

11.06.2016 but the respondent did not paid the amount.

03. After recording the evidence, the trial Court found proved that the respondent issued a cheque in favour of the appellant and the same was dismissed due to insufficient fund. Further recorded the finding that the notice was issued on 10.06.2016 and the notice was served on 11.06.2016 and respondent replied the notice on 13.06.2016 vide Exhibit-P/6 but the complaint was filed on 21.06.2016 without waiting period of fifteen days and dismissed the complaint referring to the case of Yogendra Pratap Singh vs.

Savitri Pandey and Ors. (MANU/SC/0843/2014).

04. Challenging the acquittal, this appeal has been preferred with a specific prayer that he be permitted to file another complaint after complying the necessary requirements. He relied upon the judgment passed in Yogendra Pratap Singh vs. Savitri Pandey and Ors. (MANU/SC/0843/2014) and Gajanand Burange vs. Laxmi Chand Goyal; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 682.

05. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the appeal referring to the case of Vishal Gupta vs. Kishan Batham (Criminal Appeal No.11023/2022, order dated 04.10.2023) by the High Court of M.P., Bench at Gwalior.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

06. Para 8 of Gajanand Burange (supra) is being reproduced as below:-

8. However, on behalf of the respondent, it has been urged that the second issue which was raised before the three-Judge Bench has been dealt with in the following terms:

“41… Now, since our answer to Question (i) is in the negative, we observe that the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque may file a fresh complaint within one month from the date of decision in the criminal case and, in that event, delay in filing the complaint will be treated as having been condoned under the proviso to clause (b) of Section 142 of the NI Act. This direction shall be deemed to be applicable to all such pending cases where the complaint does not proceed further in view of our answer to Question (i). As we have already held that a complaint filed before the expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice issued under clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138 is not maintainable, the complainant cannot be permitted to present the very same complaint at any later stage. His remedy is only to file a fresh complaint; and if the same could not be filed within the time prescribed under Section 142(b), his recourse is to seek the benefit of the proviso, satisfying the court of sufficient cause. Question (ii) is answered accordingly.”

07. The matter of Vishal Gupta (supra) does not address the controversy involved in the present case.

08. In view of the aforesaid law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gajanand Burange