2022 (8) TMI 693 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - time limitation - the petitioner accused firm has sought for quashing of the impugned entire proceeding primarily on the ground of limitation - HELD THAT - The disputed question of fact and law pertaining to limitation is still subjudiced in the trial court, which is the primary ground in the instant petition for the prayer for quashing and setting aside the impugned proceeding under Section 138 of the NI Act and on the other hand, it is noticed that the petitioner accused has newly impleaded one Gopal Prasad Joshi, the partner of the complainant firm as respondent No. 4 who, as stated above, is not a party in the complaint case. In such backdrop of facts, this Court is not inclined to render any effective judicial decision on the prayer of the petitioner. The learned trial court is directed to take a decision on the point of Limitation, after affording opportunity of being heard to both the parties afresh, in accordance with law - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Petition under Section 482 CrPC read with Article 227 for quashing of proceedings in NI Case No. 67/2018 on grounds of limitation.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a petition seeking to quash the proceedings in NI Case No. 67/2018 before the Addl. CJM, Sivasagar, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, alleging that a cheque issued by the petitioner was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The petitioner contested the proceedings by raising the issue of limitation.

2. The trial court considered the issue of limitation and referred to relevant Supreme Court decisions to analyze the legal aspects. The court noted that the case was subjudiced, and the decision on limitation was deferred until final disposal of the case.

3. The respondent cited a Supreme Court decision regarding the computation of the period of limitation under Section 138 of the NI Act. Additionally, the petitioner impleaded a new respondent who was not a party in the original complaint case.

4. The High Court observed that the disputed question of limitation was still pending before the trial court, and the inclusion of a new respondent complicated the matter. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition and directed the trial court to decide on the point of limitation after hearing both parties afresh.

5. The interim stay order was vacated, and the criminal petition was disposed of accordingly. The High Court emphasized the need for the trial court to address the issue of limitation in compliance with the law.

This detailed analysis highlights the legal proceedings, arguments presented by both sides, the court's consideration of relevant case laws, and the final decision of the High Court to dismiss the petition while directing the trial court to address the issue of limitation.