2022 (1) TMI 356 - HC - Indian Laws

Court quashes criminal proceedings due to late complaint filing, stresses time limits

The court quashed the summoning order and criminal proceedings in the case, ruling in favor of the applicant. The court emphasized the importance of ... Dishonor of Cheque - time limitation - applicant has advanced argument that opposite party no.2 filed the case beyond reasonable limitation - no reasonable cause for delay was provided - Sections 138 and 142 of the N.I. Act - HELD THAT:- The cause of action arose on 28.11.2005, therefore, the opposite party no.2 had sent legal notice on 13.12.2005 to the applicant. The time of one month notice expired on 11.01.2006 as per Sections 142 (1) (b) of the N.I. Act. If fifteen days’ further added, the same will expire on 26.01.2006. The opposite party no.2 filed the case under the N.I. Act on 21.03.2006, which is much beyond the time schedule prescribed under Sections 138 (c) and 142 (1) (b) of the N.I. Act. Reliance placed in the case of Sil Import, USA Vs. Exim Aides Silk Exporters, Bangalore [1999 (5) TMI 580 - SUPREME COURT] is also important to mention. The Court has pronounced the judgment, wherein, it is provided that after legal notice of one month, fifteen days’ period for committing the offence will start and thereafter after expiry of fifteen days, the offence is completed and within one month, if, no complaint is filed the Magistrate is barred to take cognizance of the complaint, which is filed beyond limitation period. The entire complaint filed by opposite party no.2 does not indicate any reason as to why delay took place in filing the complaint. The averment regarding the delay and time-barred complaint is made in para 11 and 12 of the instant application and the opposite party no.2 has not denied the contents of para 11 and 12 while giving reply in para 10 of the counter affidavit the opposite party no.2 has said that case is argumentative and suitable reply will be given at the time of argument. The opposite party no.2 has rather admitted the contents of para 11 and 12 because vague reply has been given. Application allowed. Issues:1. Quashing of summoning order under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. Challenge of the entire case instituted against the applicant.3. Determination of limitation period for filing the complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the N.I. Act.Analysis:Issue 1:The applicant sought to quash the summoning order dated 20.06.2006 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The opposite party alleged that the applicant issued four cheques which were dishonored due to the closure of the payee's account. Legal notice was sent, and the complaint was filed on 21.03.2006. The applicant argued that the complaint was filed beyond the reasonable limitation period, thus seeking quashing of the case.Issue 2:The applicant contended that the opposite party filed the case beyond the limitation period prescribed by Sections 138 and 142 of the N.I. Act. The cause of action arose on 28.11.2005, and the legal notice was sent on 13.12.2005. The applicant argued that the case filed on 21.03.2006 was well beyond the time schedule specified under the Act. Citing relevant case laws, the applicant emphasized the importance of filing the complaint within the prescribed time limit after the cause of action arises.Issue 3:The judgment extensively discussed the legal provisions of Sections 138 and 142 of the N.I. Act. It highlighted the necessity of adhering to the time limits for filing complaints under these sections. Reference was made to case laws such as PREM CHAND VIJAY KUMAR Vs. YASHPAL SINGH AND ANOTHER, SIL IMPORT, USA Vs. EXIM AIDES SILK EXPORTERS, BANGALORE; AND SADANANDAN BHADRAN Vs. MADHAVAN SUNIL KUMAR to support the argument that the complaint must be filed within the stipulated time frame after the cause of action arises. The judgment emphasized that failure to provide a valid reason for the delay in filing the complaint renders it liable to be quashed under the provisions of the N.I. Act.In conclusion, the court set aside the summoning order and quashed the criminal proceeding in the case, ruling in favor of the applicant based on the arguments presented regarding the delay in filing the complaint beyond the statutory limitation period.