AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 260
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant before us, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking the quashing of the complaint in PCR No. 3144 of 2013, which was converted as CC No. 1439 of 2014 on the file of the learned I Additional I Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class at Mysore ['the learned Magistrate']. The learned Judge rejected the petition, holding that the delay of two days in the filing of the complaint was bonafide and cognizance had rightly been taken. 3. In her complaint in PCR No. 3144 of 2013, Shobha S. Aradhya, the respondent, averred as follows: The appellant had approached her husband and her, seeking financial assistance to purchase a house and to meet legal necessities. They lent him a sum of Rs.5,40,000/- between the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sued to him to appear on the next date of hearing. It was reiterated that liberty was granted to the appellant to contest the delay at the time of the trial. 5. Thereafter, by order dated 04.02.2016, the learned Magistrate noted that an application had been filed for condonation of the delay of two days in the presentation of the complaint and opined that the same required to be considered before the case went to trial on merits. Having considered the objections on the said application, the learned Magistrate passed order dated 30.10.2018 allowing it. Therein, it was noted that the complainant had stated in the condone delay application that she was suffering from viral fever and was, therefore, unable to present the complaint within tim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt. 7. Perusal of the impugned order dated 28.06.2024 passed by the High Court reflects that the solitary issue focused upon by the appellant before the learned Judge was that the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognisance without first condoning the delay in the filing of the complaint. The learned Judge concurred with the view taken by the learned Magistrate that the delay in the filing of the complaint was actually two days and not more and that it was bona fide, justifying its condonation. Further, the learned Judge noted that the proviso to Section 142(1)(b) of the NI Act empowered the Court concerned to take cognisance of a complaint made even after the prescribed period of one month from the date on which the cause of acti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed Magistrate had observed that his predecessor-in-office had taken cognisance without noticing the delay and kept the said issue alive. The learned Judge held that, as the complaint was of the year 2013 and the matter had been pending for more than 11 years, there was no justification in considering the delay of two days in the filing of the complaint as of consequence. The learned Judge affirmed the condonation of that delay by the learned Magistrate and upheld the cognisance taken, though it was irregular, observing that the said irregularity stood cured on the delay being condoned. The appellant's petition was, accordingly, dismissed. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant would argue that cognizance could not have been taken by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o, as the learned Magistrate had, in fact, reserved the right of the appellant to raise the issue of delay during the trial but, having stated so, the learned Magistrate, thereafter, took upon himself the task of deciding the limitation issue and condoned the delay by the later order dated 30.10.2018. 12. At this stage, we may note that, in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod (supra), it was held that cognisance under Section 142 of the NI Act of an offence under Section 138 thereof is forbidden except upon a complaint, in writing, made by the payee or holder of the cheque in due course within one month from the date the cause of action accrues to such payee or holder under clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138. It was observed that the proviso ....