2019 (11) TMI 166 - HC - Indian Laws

Summon of order - section 138 read with section 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act - cognizable offences or not - HELD THAT - Fact remains that the case in hand is not a warrants case, therefore, Section 468 (2)(C) under which cognizance should be taken within the time mentioned therein based upon the offences committed by the accused. In view of Indra Kumar Patodia And Another 2012 (12) TMI 154 - SUPREME COURT , the limitation provided under Section 468 is not applicable. Moreover, the cognizance of the complaint was taken by the concerned CMM, who thereafter marked the case to the concerned Trial Court. The Trial Court after going through the contents of the complaint and evidence on record, issued summons. However, nowhere it is provided in Section 138 142 of N.I. Act that the summons shall be issued within the prescribed time. There is no merits in the petition - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Challenge to summoning order under Negotiable Instrument Act.
2. Allegations of financial arrangements and loan taken without consent.
3. Non-receipt of legal notice and delay in pursuing the matter.
4. Delay in taking cognizance and applicability of Section 468.
5. Interpretation of legal provisions for issuance of summons.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought to set aside the summoning order dated 11.01.2017 under the Negotiable Instrument Act. The petitioner alleged that the loan was taken without consent for business expansion, leading to a criminal complaint. The petitioner argued that the complaint was bad in law due to non-receipt of the legal notice and delay in pursuing the matter, challenging the validity of the summoning order.

2. The petitioner joined a construction company as a director with a profit share. The company faced financial difficulties, prompting the director to seek financial assistance. The respondent allegedly induced the director into a financial arrangement without the petitioner's knowledge, resulting in the loan. The petitioner was asked to sign security cheques without full awareness of the situation, leading to the summoning order.

3. The petitioner claimed non-receipt of the legal notice and highlighted the delay in pursuing the matter, questioning the validity of the complaint. The petitioner argued that the delay in taking cognizance after four years rendered the complaint liable for rejection, citing the fundamental right to a speedy trial and legal precedents supporting timely proceedings.

4. The petitioner relied on legal precedents emphasizing the importance of a speedy trial and argued that the delay in taking cognizance under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act should lead to the rejection of the complaint. The judgment discussed the applicability of Section 468 and the necessity of timely proceedings in cases involving summary trials.

5. The judgment analyzed the legal provisions and precedents to determine the validity of the summoning order. It referenced cases highlighting the importance of the date of filing the complaint for computing the period of limitation, emphasizing the need for due verification and issuance of process by the magistrate. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition based on settled legal principles and statutory provisions.