2017 (7) TMI 543 - HC - Indian Laws

Complaints under Section 138 of the N.I. Act - Held that - In the cases at hand, the complainants challenged the orders of return of their complaints by filing the above referred misc. petitions in this Court in the earlier round of litigation. Notices of the misc. petitions were served upon the accused. The court after hearing the learned counsel representing the parties gave explicit permission to the complainants to seek revival of their complaints in the trial court. Pursuant to such direction, the complainants resubmitted the original complaints with the copy of this Court s order dated 15.12.2015 in the trial court which directed re-registration thereof by separate orders dated 22.12.2015 which have not been challenged and have thus attained finality. Thus, the challenge laid on behalf of the accused persons that the order taking cognizance is bad in the eye of law is per-se without any merit whatsoever and cannot be sustained. The only order which is under challenge in the set of misc. petitions filed on behalf of the accused is the order dated 26.4.2016 by which, the court directed summoning of the accused persons through warrant of arrest because they failed to appear in the court despite assurance given on their behalf. Though, primafacie, this Court finds no illegality in the said order but in order to secure the ends of justice, the accused persons deserve to be given one opportunity to appear before the trial Court and furnish bail bonds upon which, they shall be released on bail. Misc. petitions filed on behalf of the complainants are allowed; the trial Court is directed to proceed further with the complaints submitted by the respective complainants and to try the accused as per law. The misc. petitions filed on behalf of the accused are dismissed as being devoid of merit while giving them liberty to appear before the trial Court within a period of 30 days from today and furnish bail bonds upon which they shall be released on bail. Failure to do so, would entitle the court below to secure their attendance by adopting coercive methods. The trial Court is further directed to expedite the trials and to try and complete the same within a period of one year from the date of submission of copy of this order.

Issues Involved:
1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Trial Court.
2. Legality of the Order Taking Cognizance.
3. Revival of Complaints Post-Amendment in the N.I. Act.
4. Issuance of Warrant of Arrest Against the Accused.
5. Exemption from Personal Appearance.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Trial Court:
The controversy arose from the trial court's territorial jurisdiction to entertain complaints under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Initially, the trial court at Phalodi took cognizance and summoned the accused. However, following the Supreme Court's judgment in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra, the trial court returned the complaints citing lack of territorial jurisdiction. The complainants subsequently moved the High Court, which allowed them to seek revival of their complaints in light of the 2015 amendment to the N.I. Act. The amendment clarified that complaints could be filed where the cheques were presented for collection, thus restoring the trial court's jurisdiction.

2. Legality of the Order Taking Cognizance:
The accused challenged the trial court's order taking cognizance, arguing it was passed without application of mind and was a non-speaking order. They contended that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revive the complaints without fresh applications for condonation of delay. The High Court dismissed these arguments, noting that the original cognizance order was not challenged in time and had attained finality. The court emphasized that the amendment to Section 142 of the N.I. Act ratified actions taken under the Act, even if initially lacking jurisdiction due to the Supreme Court's earlier judgment.

3. Revival of Complaints Post-Amendment in the N.I. Act:
Following the High Court's order, the complainants resubmitted their complaints, and the trial court re-registered them. The accused argued that the complainants should have filed fresh complaints with applications for condonation of delay. The High Court rejected this, stating that the trial court's re-registration order was justified and had attained finality. The court held that the amendment to the N.I. Act allowed the revival of complaints without the need for fresh applications.

4. Issuance of Warrant of Arrest Against the Accused:
The trial court issued warrants of arrest against the accused for failing to appear despite being aware of the proceedings. The accused challenged this order, arguing it was unjustified. The High Court found no illegality in the trial court's order but granted the accused one opportunity to appear and furnish bail bonds. Failure to do so would entitle the trial court to adopt coercive methods to secure their attendance.

5. Exemption from Personal Appearance:
The accused initially sought exemption from personal appearance, which was granted. However, they later failed to appear, leading to the issuance of warrants. The High Court directed the accused to appear before the trial court within 30 days and furnish bail bonds, failing which coercive measures would be adopted.

Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the complainants' misc. petitions, directing the trial court to proceed with the complaints and try the accused as per law. The misc. petitions filed by the accused were dismissed as devoid of merit. The trial court was instructed to expedite the trials and complete them within one year.

← Previous Next →