2022 (5) TMI 408 - HC - Indian Laws

Court upholds complaint and summoning order, dismissing petition under Cr.P.C. Section 482.

Manjit Singh Versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

The court dismissed the petition, upholding the complaint and summoning order dated 21.01.2021. It concluded that the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ... Dishonor of Cheque - Funds Insufficient/Dormant Account - seeking exclusion of period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 in computing the period under proviso (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Act of 1881 and any other law, on account of COVID-19 pandemic - Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - HELD THAT:- The present petitioner apparently only wants to delay the final adjudication of the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act of 1881, as neither the petitioner has raised any ground to the effect that the cheque in question was not issued by the petitioner nor is the petitioner ready to honour the cheque even now and even in case, the sole argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted then also, at best, the present proceedings would be set aside and the complainant would be given the liberty to file a fresh complaint and it is not that the petitioner would be absolved of his liability under Section 138 of the Act of 1881. Moreover, the present petition has been filed after a delay of 1 year and 3 months from the date of the summoning order after non-bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner. This Court is of the view that the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the complaint as instituted on 21.10.2020 was premature, is meritless and deserves to be rejected. Thus, the point as to whether the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in IN RE: COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION [2022 (1) TMI 385 - SC ORDER] are for the benefit of the complainant or for the benefit of the accused person is answered in favour of the complainant and against the petitioner/accused person. This Court is of the opinion that in case, this Court was to entertain the present petition, it would be doing injustice to the complainant, who has been vigilant of its rights and had instituted the complaint under Section 138 with respect to the dishonour of the cheque, in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1881 - A perusal of the complaint would show that the ingredients of Section 138 of the Act of 1881 are, prima facie, made out. No argument has been raised challenging the said aspect. Petition dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Whether the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu WP(C) No. 3 of 2020 are for the benefit of the complainant or the accused.2. Whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the summoning order dated 21.01.2021 deserve to be quashed/set aside.3. Whether the complaint filed on 21.10.2020 was premature.4. Whether the period of limitation for instituting proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, during the COVID-19 pandemic affects the validity of the complaint and summoning order.Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu WP(C) No. 3 of 2020 are for the benefit of the complainant or the accused:The court examined various orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court starting from 23.03.2020. The orders extended the period of limitation for filing petitions/applications/suits due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The court concluded that these orders were intended to benefit litigants who needed to file cases/complaints and were unable to do so due to the pandemic. The orders did not bar the filing of complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, nor did they provide any benefit to the accused. Hence, the orders were for the benefit of the complainant, allowing them more time to institute proceedings.2. Whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the summoning order dated 21.01.2021 deserve to be quashed/set aside:The court found that the complaint and summoning order were filed and issued in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act of 1881. The chronological list of events demonstrated that the cheque was dishonored, a legal notice was issued, and the complaint was filed after the accused failed to make the payment. The court noted that the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not restrain the complainant from instituting the complaint during the pandemic. The complaint was not premature, and the summoning order was validly issued. Therefore, the complaint and summoning order did not deserve to be quashed/set aside.3. Whether the complaint filed on 21.10.2020 was premature:The court referred to the judgment in Yogendra Pratap Singh Vs. Savitri Pandey, where a premature complaint was quashed. However, in the present case, the complaint was filed after the expiry of 15 days from the service of the legal notice, making it valid. The court held that the complaint filed on 21.10.2020 was not premature and thus, the argument that the complaint was premature was meritless.4. Whether the period of limitation for instituting proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, during the COVID-19 pandemic affects the validity of the complaint and summoning order:The court analyzed the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and concluded that these orders were meant to extend the period of limitation for filing cases due to the pandemic. The orders did not impose any embargo on filing complaints under Section 138 during the pandemic. The court emphasized that the orders were for the benefit of the complainant, allowing them to file complaints after the pandemic without being barred by the limitation period. The court found that the complaint and summoning order were valid and unaffected by the extended limitation period due to the pandemic.Conclusion:The court dismissed the petition, upholding the complaint and the summoning order dated 21.01.2021. The court concluded that the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court were for the benefit of the complainant, the complaint was not premature, and the extended limitation period due to the pandemic did not affect the validity of the complaint and summoning order. The observations made were specific to the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and should not be construed as final expressions on the merits of the case, which would be adjudicated by the trial court.