TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal allowed for premature filing under Negotiable Instruments Act & Penal Code</h1> <h3>Rattan Chand Versus Kanwar Ram Kripal and Ors.</h3> Rattan Chand Versus Kanwar Ram Kripal and Ors. - TMI Issues involved: Appeal against dismissal of complaint u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 of IPC due to premature filing.The judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh addressed the appeal against the dismissal of a complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was aggrieved by the judgment of the Additional C.J.M., Una, which dismissed the complaint on the grounds of premature filing before the accrual of the cause of action. The complaint was regarding a cheque issued by the respondent for Rs. 9500 in favor of the complainant, which was dishonored. The complainant issued a notice to the respondent on 19th August 1993, a day before the expiry of the 15-day waiting period required by law before filing a complaint. However, the complaint was filed on 3rd September 1993, before the waiting period ended on 4th September 1993. The Trial Magistrate took cognizance of the matter after the expiry of the prescribed 15 days, leading to the dismissal of the complaint.The High Court referred to the decision in Narsingh Das Tapadia v. Goverdhan Das Partani and Anr. (2000) 7 SCC 183, where the Supreme Court held that if a complaint is filed before the expiry of the 15-day waiting period, the Magistrate should postpone taking cognizance instead of dismissing the complaint. In this case, the Magistrate had taken cognizance much after the 15-day period had lapsed, emphasizing the applicability of the Supreme Court's ruling. Therefore, the High Court accepted the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and remanded the case to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate for a fresh decision on merits in accordance with the law. The parties were directed to appear before the trial Court on 24.4.2009, and the trial Court's record was to be returned promptly along with a copy of the judgment to ensure timely proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
