2018 (9) TMI 504 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - Time Limitation - only contention is that though the complaint has been filed on 17.03.2010 within the period of limitation, as it could be seen from the complaint and from the seal of the Lower Court, the complaint was returned to the respondent to represent within a period of two weeks time - proviso as per the Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Held that - If there is any delay in filing the complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act, if a delay is explained to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, the same may be condoned. In this case, though, the complaint was filed well within the time, the delay of 147 days has occurred in representing the complaint. Hence, the Trial Court taking the Crl.M.P.No.7229 of 2010 on the file and issuance of notice to the petitioner who is an accused in un-numbered S.T.C. of 2010 cannot be construed as an abuse of process of law - the case is pending even without assigning S.T.C. Number from the year 2010, due to the pendency of the above Criminal Original Petition. Under Section 143 to 146 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it could be seen that these amendments have been made for the purpose of the speedy disposal of the cases filed under Negotiable Instruments Act. Considering the inordinate delay, even at the pre-cognizant stage of the above case, this Court in the interest of justice directs the Trial Court to proceed with the case as expeditiously as possible.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of proceedings in C.M.P.No.7229 of 2010 in un-numbered S.T.C.No.......of 2010.
2. Allegations of borrowing money and issuing a cheque.
3. Delay in representing the complaint before the Trial Court.
4. Application of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
5. Speedy disposal of cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, an officer in the Income Tax Department, sought to quash proceedings related to a demand notice under Section 138 received from the respondent, alleging a borrowed amount of ?5,00,000 through a cheque. The petitioner denied liability, having closed the bank account in question earlier and filed complaints against the respondent and bank manager for offenses under the Indian Penal Code.

2. The respondent contended that the petitioner owed the debt and the cheque was given to discharge the liability, meeting statutory requirements for filing the complaint. A delay of 147 days occurred in representing the complaint due to a mix-up in the advocate's office, leading to the Trial Court assigning the case and issuing notice to the petitioner.

3. Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was invoked, allowing condonation of delay if satisfactorily explained. Despite the initial filing within the limitation period, the delay in representing the complaint was addressed. The Trial Court's actions were deemed not an abuse of process of law, considering the circumstances.

4. The Court highlighted the importance of expeditious handling of cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act, emphasizing the need for speedy disposal. The dismissal of the Criminal Original Petition directed the Trial Court to proceed promptly, ensuring justice is served efficiently.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the petition, directing the Trial Court to expedite proceedings, emphasizing the significance of timely case resolution under the Negotiable Instruments Act for effective justice delivery.