9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issue involves the delay in filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the absence of a petition to condone the delay, and the legality of the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate without following the proper procedure. Summary: The petitioner filed a Criminal Original Petition to quash the proceedings in C.C No. 1295 of 2006, as the complaint was filed after a delay of 10 days without a petition to condone the delay. The learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the case without following the necessary procedure. The petitioner argued that the cognizance taken by the Magistrate should be quashed as it did not involve condoning the delay through a proper petition and hearing. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the complainant should have filed a petition supported by an affidavit to condone the delay, and the Magistrate should have given an opportunity for hearing before taking cognizance. The petitioner also argued against granting liberty to the respondent to file a petition to condone the delay, as it might lead to a second cause of action. In a referenced case, it was highlighted that the complainant should be given an opportunity to file an application to condone the delay in filing the complaint. The Court noted that the Magistrate did not follow the proper procedure in this case, affecting the petitioner's rights. The Court decided to set aside the order of the Magistrate and remit the matter back for the complainant to file a petition to condone the delay, followed by a proper hearing and decision by the Magistrate. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument against allowing the respondent to file a petition to condone the delay, stating that there was no second cause of action involved. The Criminal Original Petition was disposed of with the mentioned directions, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.
|
