2021 (8) TMI 1008 - HC - Indian Laws

Court upholds summoning order under Section 138 NI Act, rejecting challenge on non-service & delay issues.

The Court dismissed the applicant's application seeking to quash the summoning order and criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable ... Dishonor of Cheque - delay in filing complaint - time limitation - Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act - HELD THAT:- The question of delay in filing the complaint shall suitably be considered during the course of trial. The laches in filing the present application has also not been properly explained, as such, impugned summoning order dated 18.12.2014 passed by the trial court is just, proper and legal and do not call for any interference by this Court at this belated stage. Present application under Section 482 CrPC is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. Issues:1. Quashing of summoning order and criminal proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.2. Service of summons on the applicant.3. Time-barred complaint and delay in filing.Analysis:1. The applicant filed an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash the summoning order and criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint alleged that the applicant issued a cheque that was dishonored, leading to legal action. The learned Magistrate summoned the applicant after due enquiry under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC. The applicant's counsel argued that summons were not served, preventing the challenge of proceedings. However, the AGA supported the summoning order, highlighting the lapse of over seven years without explanation from the applicant. The Court noted that delay issues could be addressed during trial and found no illegality in the summoning order, dismissing the application as devoid of merit.2. The applicant's counsel contended that summons were not served on the applicant, hindering the ability to challenge the proceedings. Despite this argument, the Court did not find this ground sufficient to interfere with the summoning order. The lack of service of summons did not invalidate the legality of the order, as the delay in filing the complaint could be addressed during the trial proceedings.3. Another issue raised was the time-barred complaint and delay in filing. The applicant's counsel claimed that the complaint was time-barred, seeking to quash the proceedings on this basis. However, the AGA argued that the delay could be appropriately considered during the trial. The Court agreed with the AGA, stating that the delay issue could be addressed during the trial process and that the belated challenge to the summoning order lacked proper explanation. Consequently, the Court found the summoning order just, proper, and legal, dismissing the application under Section 482 CrPC as devoid of merit.