AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (10) TMI 714
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was registered on the strength of a private complaint, lodged by the respondent, under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, as regards dishonour of a cheque. 3. While the court fee payable for the complaint was Rs.325/-, at the time of presenting the complaint on 29.09.2003, the complainant paid Rs.100/- only, thereby the complaint was returned by the Judicial Magistrate on 10.10.2003, mentioning, "sufficient stamps to be affixed". 4. After complying with the said direction, the complaint was re-presented on 16.10.2003 and, on 20.10.2003, the said complaint was again returned with an endorsement that in the petition, name of the accused, who issued the cheque on behalf of the firm, i.e., fourth accused was not clearly ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the petitioners is that there is no provision either in Cr.P.C. or Criminal Rules of Practice, for return of complaint, for the purpose of affixing proper court fee, after it was presented with deficit court fee and, as such, the complaint should have suffered dismissal at the hands of the Magistrate, for insufficient court fee. 7. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that law recognises return of complaint by a Judicial Magistrate, for making good of certain defects, and, returning of complaint, which was presented to the Court in time, and its representation afterwards could, in no way, be construed as extension of statutory period of limitation and the order of returning the complaint was only administrative, whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....int by the Court and the complainant respectively, we have to see, whether they would prejudice the valuable legal rights of the accused. If the answer is positive, the proceedings in C.C.No.104 of 2004 will have to face quashment. 10. It is well settled that an irregularity can at any time be rectified, but the answer will be emphatically NO, in case of illegality and if it occurs in a proceeding, it has to be axed out. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners cites a Division Bench decision of this Court in A.Vinayagam and three others v. Dr.Subash Chandran and another, 2000 (I) CTC 225, in which it was held that it is the duty of the complainant to produce defectless complaint, which becomes the property of the Court, after Court seal i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that once the complaints were filed within limitation, merely because the Magistrates, completely contrary to the procedure known to law, chose to return the same without fixing the date for re-presentation, it should not be held that the subsequent filing by the complainants would be held to be beyond limitation." 12. Following the principle laid down in the decision aforementioned, it is to be held that though there was deficit court fee on the date of original presentation of the complaint within the prescribed period of limitation, it could be said to be valid, irrespective of the subsequent returns by the Court. The return of plaint for rectification of certain defects as to court fee and re-presentation by the party after recti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the grounds, which are portrayed by the petitioners in the present petition, were already available at the time of filing the previous petition and, after a lapse of about one year, the petitioners have come forward with this petition. 15. On 24.06.2005, the trial has commenced. The complainant filed proof affidavit for chief-examination and produced 36 exhibits. After a lapse of over one year i.e., on 02.11.2006, the present petition has been presented before this court, for quashing the proceedings. 16. In this context, learned counsel for the respondent would strenuously argue that after the trial was opened for examination of witnesses, there would be no quashment of the ....