High Court emphasizes curable nature of delay in complaints under Negotiable Instruments Act, directs submission of an affidavit.

The High Court dismissed the Criminal Original Petitions, emphasizing the curable nature of the absence of an affidavit for condoning delay in filing complaints under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court directed the respondent to submit an affidavit explaining the delay, allowing the petitioners to respond. If the reasons were satisfactory, the delay could be condoned. The Court stressed the importance of following proper procedures, allowing the complaints to proceed without being quashed. The petitioners were granted the opportunity to present defenses in the trial court, which was instructed to proceed promptly and lawfully.

---

---

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the condonation of delay in filing complaints under Section 138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act and the legality of the trial court taking cognizance of the alleged offense.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Condonation of Delay
The respondent filed complaints against the petitioners for dishonored cheques. The respondent sought to condone the delay in filing the complaints. The complaints were filed after the prescribed period of limitation. The petitioners argued that the trial court did not follow the proper procedure for condoning the delay, constituting an abuse of the court process. They cited legal precedents to support their contention.

Issue 2: Legality of Cognizance
The main point in the criminal original petitions was whether the trial court could legally take cognizance of the alleged offense under Section 138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act by condoning the delay in filing the complaints. The petitioners contended that the trial court's actions were not legally sustainable, while the respondent argued for the legality of the trial court's actions.

Judgment Summary:
The High Court dismissed the Criminal Original Petitions, stating that the complaints could not be quashed solely based on the absence of an accompanying affidavit stating reasons for the delay. The Court emphasized that the lack of such an affidavit was a curable defect. The Court directed the respondent to file an affidavit explaining the delay, allowing the petitioners to counter the reasons in the affidavit. The Court held that if the reasons were adequate, the delay could be condoned on merits. The judgment highlighted the importance of following proper procedures for condoning delay and stated that the complaints should proceed without being quashed. The petitioners were granted the liberty to present their defenses in the trial court, which was instructed to proceed with the case promptly and in accordance with the law.

---