9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 685X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f of the respondent State in respective cases. In these two petitions, question of facts and law are involved and that is why both the petitions have been heard together with the consent of the parties. Since two cheques were issued by the O.P.No.2, that is why two complaint cases have been filed which is the subject matter in these petitions. These petitions have been filed for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 03.11.2017 in connection with Complaint Case No.3389/2017 in Cr.M.P.No.4227/2018 and Complaint Case No.3390/2017 in Cr.M.P. No.4257 of 2018 whereby cognizance under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act has been taken against the petitioner in both the cases. The cognizance order in both the cases is same. The compla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tention of the accused since beginning to cheat the complainant and thereby the accused issued the said cheque which has been bounced due to insufficient fund in the Bank Account of the accused. Mr. Choubey, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the cases submits that there was delay of 8 days in filing the complaint case and inspite of that, in absence of any condonation petition in view of the amended provision of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the cognizance has been taken. According to him, in view of transmission of legal notice, cheque return and statutory provision under section 138(c) and 142(b) of Negotiable Instruments Act which was required to be filed on 11.09.2017. He further submits that in the complaint, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity through a reply dated 20-2-2006. The complaint was filed on 24-5- 2006. Prima facie, in view of the aforesaid dates the complaint was beyond the permissible period. No doubt the Court has been empowered to take cognizance even after the prescribed period but only if the complainant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making the complaint within the prescribed period. 6. On the basis of order-sheet of the Court of Magistrate it has been shown that initially summons were ordered to be issued to the accused on 5-12-2006 after recording a single sentence that the complainant was represented. Since proper steps were not taken summons appear to have been re-issued at the correct address on 22-10-2011. The orders of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... required to look into section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alongwith the proviso and sub section (b) of section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The proviso to section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act is quoted hereinbelow: "Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless- (a) The cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (b) The payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
