Belated challenge to summoning order fails where delay in complaint can be tested at trial and delay in approaching court is unexplained.

A belated challenge under Section 482 CrPC to a summoning order in a Negotiable Instruments Act prosecution was rejected where the Magistrate had already considered the complaint and the enquiry under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC. The Court held that alleged delay in filing the complaint was a matter for trial and did not justify quashing at that stage. It also noted that the applicant approached the Court after a considerable lapse of time without satisfactorily explaining the delay. The summoning order was treated as just, proper and legal, and the criminal proceedings were permitted to continue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the summoning order and criminal proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act should be quashed on the grounds of delay in filing the complaint and alleged procedural infirmity.

Analysis: The application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was directed against a summoning order passed after the Magistrate had considered the complaint and the enquiry under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The question of delay in filing the complaint was held to be a matter that could be appropriately considered during trial. The application itself was filed after a considerable lapse of time, and the delay in approaching the Court was not satisfactorily explained.

Conclusion: The summoning order was found to be just, proper and legal, and no interference was warranted at the belated stage; the request for quashing failed.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings were allowed to continue and the challenge to the summoning order was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A belated challenge to a summoning order will not be entertained where the objection raised can be examined in trial and the delay in approaching the Court remains unexplained.

---