IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

th

ON THE 14 OF JANUARY, 2026

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 31181 of 2019

RAMESH JATAV

Versus

RAKESH SAHU

Appearance:

Shri Ramesh Prasad Gupta - Advocate for the petitioner.

ORDER application for condonation of delay, explaining that his illness and non- availability of court fee stamps due to shortage were the reasons for delay and default. However, the Revisional Court dismissed the revision holding it to be barred by limitation. Hence, the present petition.

The present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the

petitioner challenging the order dated 06.07.2019 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra, District Gwalior in Criminal Revision No.220/2018, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as time barred. The said revision arose out of the order dated 15.01.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dabra, by which the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was dismissed for

non-payment of court fee and non-appearance of the complainant.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a complaint under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging dishonour of cheque of Rs.1,50,000/-. During the pendency of the complaint, the trial Court fixed the matter for payment of court fee. On 15.01.2018, due to non-payment of court fee and absence of the petitioner, the complaint was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a criminal revision along with an

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below are contrary to law and the record of the case and therefore deserve to be set aside. The Revisional Court committed a grave legal error in dismissing the criminal revision as time barred. The application for condonation of delay specifically mentioned sufficient and reasonable cause, namely that the petitioner was unwell and could not remain present on the relevant date. Despite this explanation, the delay was not condoned, which is against settled principles of law. Before the Trial Court, the petitioner had already deposited the required court fee amount with the stamp vendor, however, due to shortage of court fee stamps, the same could not be affixed on the prescribed date. For this reason alone, the complaint came to be dismissed, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. The petitioner is even now ready and willing to deposit the requisite Court fee before the Trial Court and comply with all procedural requirements. It is a settled principle of law that a litigant should not be penalized for any inadvertent lapse or difficulty on the part of his counsel, particularly when no mala fide intention can be attributed to the petitioner. The respondent– accused has admittedly not paid the remaining amount of Rs.1,50,000/- nor returned the vehicle in question. Therefore, the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act raises a prima facie case and deserves to be decided on merits. It is further submitted that the dismissal of the complaint on technical grounds has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner, whereas no prejudice would be caused to the respondent if one opportunity is granted to the petitioner to prosecute his case on merits. Hence, it is prayed that the present petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. be allowed and the impugned orders dated 06.07.2019 and 15.01.2018 be set aside and restore the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to its original number and grant the petitioner one opportunity to deposit the requisite court fee.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

It is well settled that procedural lapses should not defeat substantial justice. The explanation given by the petitioner for his absence and delay appears to be bona fide. The complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act involves adjudication of