2018 (5) TMI 789 - HC - Indian Laws

Cognizance of offence - Cheque bounced - petitioners filed a motion seeking discharge on the grounds that the complaints are premature for the reason that the same have been filed before the expiry of the stipulated period of (15) days, as provided under the Statute, for making payment from the date of the receipt of the said notice - Held that - the learned counsel representing the respondents admitted that the respondents have erred in law in filing the complaints before the expiry of the period detailed in Section 138(C) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - that the respondents have erred in law, the complaints in all the three cases having been filed before the period stipulated under Section 138(C) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, are held to be premature and, therefore, the orders impugned passed on the dates 20th, 24th & 20th of April, 2017, respectively in all these complaints and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Determining premature filing of complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis:
The petitions involved in this case challenged the orders passed by the Forest Magistrate, Srinagar, regarding complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioners argued that the complaints were premature as they were filed before the expiry of the stipulated 15-day period for making payment from the date of receipt of the notice of demand. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a Supreme Court judgment in the case of 'Yogendra Pratap Singh v. Savitri Pandey & Anr.' to support their argument. The Supreme Court's judgment emphasized the importance of the 15-day notice period before taking cognizance of an offense under Section 138 of the Act.

The Supreme Court's judgment highlighted that filing a complaint before the expiry of the 15-day notice period is premature and legally not maintainable. The Court overruled previous judgments suggesting otherwise and emphasized the necessity of the notice period as part of the cause of action for lodging a complaint under Section 138. The Court held that until the expiry of the 15-day notice period, the drawer/accused cannot be said to have committed any offense. Therefore, complaints filed before the completion of the notice period are not valid in the eyes of the law.

Upon acknowledging the legal error in filing the complaints prematurely, the learned counsel for the respondents admitted the mistake. Following the legal precedent and the admission of error by the respondents, the Court held that the complaints in all three cases were premature and subsequently quashed the orders passed by the Magistrate. The Court allowed the respondents to file fresh complaints in accordance with the law before the competent jurisdiction.

In conclusion, the Court disposed of the petitions by quashing the impugned orders and directing the registry to hand over the necessary documents to the respondents. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory provisions, particularly the 15-day notice period under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, to ensure the legality and validity of complaints filed under the Act.