2018 (6) TMI 815 - HC - Indian Laws

Time Limitation of filing complaint - contention of the petitioners is that since the cheques were returned on 18.12.2009 and the complaint is filed only on 18.02.2010, the complaint is barred by limitation - Held that - The complainant has received intimation from the bank with regard to the dishonour of cheque on 18.12.2009. He has issued the first notice on 28.12.2009 and since the notice was not served to the accused, he issued another notice dated 09.01.2010. Both the notices were issued within a period of one month from the date of dishonour of cheques and the complaint is filed on 18.02.2010 - the complaint is filed within the prescribed period of limitation - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Petition to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of CrPC - Liability of trustees in a trust for offence under Section 138 of NI Act - Compliance with Section 141 of NI Act - Limitation period for filing complaint.

Analysis:
The petitioners, trustees of a trust, sought to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of CrPC regarding a complaint under Section 138 of NI Act. The complaint alleged non-payment for supplied books and dishonored cheques. The complainant argued that trustees, as part of the trust, were liable under Section 138 of NI Act. The petitioners contended that they were merely eo-nominees and not directly involved in the trust's affairs. However, the court noted that a trust is a juristic person liable under Section 138 of NI Act, and trustees involved in trust operations are also accountable under Section 141 of NI Act. As the petitioners failed to demonstrate their limited role, the court found prima facie evidence to proceed against them.

Regarding the limitation period for filing the complaint, the petitioners argued that the delay between cheque dishonor and complaint filing rendered it time-barred. The court clarified the timeline requirements for filing a complaint under Section 138 of NI Act. As the complainant issued notices promptly after dishonor and filed the complaint within the prescribed period, the court deemed the complaint timely. The court upheld the Magistrate's decision to take cognizance of the offence and found no grounds to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of CrPC. Consequently, the petitions to quash the proceedings were dismissed, affirming the validity of the criminal complaint and the jurisdiction of the Magistrate.