2020 (11) TMI 430 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - HELD THAT - A perusal of the impugned orders passed by the trial Court would go to show that, in its impugned order dated 09.09.2019, for rejecting the application filed by the complainant seeking deletion of the words on the dated first week of December 2018 , the trial Court has given the reason that, mentioning of the date or the period of transaction is very much necessary in a criminal proceeding under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, as such, deletion of the alleged period of transaction cannot be permitted. The said reasoning given by the trial Court is not a convincing reason in my view for the reason that, it is not mandatory that the alleged date of transaction must necessarily be given by the complainant in the proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act to maintain the petition. It is for the complainant to decide whether giving the date of transaction or the period of transaction is necessary. If to prove the alleged transaction, date or the period is necessary, then it is required. If he fails to furnish such particulars, then it amounts to complainant himself leaving it vacant. Thus, it is for the complainant to decide regarding the strength of his complaint. If he wants to make his complaint more vivid and detailed, then it is for him to give all the details. But if he himself opts for deleting certain details from the complaint, then it is his act. Advantage of the same in such a circumstance may be taken by the defence side. The impugned order is set aside and the application under consideration filed by the complainant, which is dated 10.05.2019, is allowed and the complainant is permitted to delete the words on the dated first week of December 2018 in para 3 of his complaint - Petition allowed in part.

Issues involved:
1. Application for amending the complaint by the removal of specific words.
2. Application for amending the complaint by substitution of words.
3. Maintainability of the second application after the rejection of the first.
4. Interpretation of the necessity of mentioning the date or period of transaction in a criminal proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
5. Validity of the trial court's rejection of the second application based on maintainability.
6. Decision on the first application for deletion of words.
7. Decision on the second application for substitution of words.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner/complainant sought permission to amend the complaint by removing the words "on the dated first week of December 2018." The accused opposed this amendment citing estoppel. The trial court rejected the application, leading to the filing of criminal petition No.100118/2020 by the complainant.

2. Subsequent to the rejection of the first application, the complainant filed a similar application seeking to substitute the words "in the first week of December" with "in the month of November and December." This second application was also rejected by the trial court, prompting the filing of criminal petition No.100119/2020 by the complainant.

3. Both petitions were heard together as they arose from the same criminal case. The trial court's reasoning for rejecting the first application was that mentioning the date or period of the transaction is crucial in a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. However, the High Court found this reasoning unconvincing, stating that it is not mandatory for the complainant to provide the date of the transaction. The High Court held that the complainant should decide the necessity of including such details in the complaint.

4. The High Court allowed the first application for deletion of words, emphasizing that the complainant has the discretion to decide the strength and details of the complaint. However, regarding the second application for substitution of words, the trial court's rejection based on maintainability was deemed inappropriate after allowing the first application. The High Court set aside the order on the second application and remanded it to the trial court for fresh consideration.

5. In the final order, Criminal Petition No.100118/2020 was allowed, permitting the complainant to delete specific words from the complaint. Criminal Petition No.100119/2020 was partially allowed, setting aside the trial court's order and remanding the application for amending the complaint for fresh consideration. Both parties were directed to appear before the trial court without further notice on a specified date to proceed with the matter promptly.

← Previous Next →