9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 984X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of complainant himself that he had given a cheque by way of security of loan. By interpolating the date, the cheque has been presented under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. Challenging the order by which cognizance has been taken, it is submitted by counsel for the applicant that the complaint filed by the respondent is misconceived and the Magistrate should not have taken up the cognizance. It is further submitted that although the order under challenge is a revisable order but this Court has a concurrent jurisdiction to entertain this application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is further contended by counsel for applicant that since the applicant has filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was issued but by interpolating the cheque the date 25.12.2013 was made by applicant as 25.02.2013. Any manipulation in the valuable security is an offence. It is further submitted that since the manipulated cheque was used for instituting a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, therefore, the trial Magistrate did not commit any mistake by taking cognizance for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act reads as under: "139. Presumption in favour of holder.-It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... truments Act is misconceived and hereby rejected. Whether the complaint was filed by the way of counter blast, malafide and is belated or not? 9. It is contended by counsel for applicant that the complaint was filed after the cognizance for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was taken and therefore, it was filed out of malafide, by way of counter blast and it was belated. To buttress his contentions, counsel for applicant has relied upon in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604. 10. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the applicant. 11. The Supreme Court in the case of Renu Kumari vs. Sanjay Kumar reported in 2008 (12) SCC 346 has held that if the allegations make out a c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l. Of course, a prompt and immediate lodging of FIR is ideal as that would give the prosecution a twin advantage i.e. firstly it affords commencement of the investigation without any time lapse and secondly that it expels the opportunity for any possible concoction of a false version. Even otherwise promptly lodged FIR is also not an unreserved guarantee for the genuineness of the version incorporated therein. There may be variety of genuine causes for FIR lodgement to get delayed. 17. The Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Wajid and another Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in AIR 2023 SC 3784 has held that delay in registration of FIR, by itself cannot be a ground for quashing of FIR. Thus, it is clear that merely because accordi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
