9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the costs to the petitioner(s)." 2. The respondent filed a complaint case bearing CC NO. 397/2020 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter "NI ACT"), thereby, alleging that the petitioners issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. 13,61,402/- in discharge of a legally enforceable liability. The cheque was presented for encashment but was dishonoured with the remarks 'payment stopped by drawer'. 3. The learned Trial Court, vide order dated 28th October, 2020, passed the summoning order, whereby, the petitioners were summoned for the offence under section 138 of the NI Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed the instant petition seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 28th October, 2020 as well as quashing of the aforesaid complaint case filed by the respondent under the NI Act. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside as the same has been passed without taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances. 6. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has failed to take into account that the complaint has been filed after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion may be dismissed. 13. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the material on record. 14. By way of the present petition, the petitioners have challenged the impugned summoning order and are seeking quashing of the complaint case filed by the respondent. 15. As per the settled principles of law, summons in a complaint case instituted under the NI Act are issued when a prima facie a case is made out on the basis of documents (evidence by way of affidavit) along with the complaint and its content. While issuing summons, the Court concerned has to carefully examine the material available on record and it must be ensured that there is enough preliminary evidence to proceed without delving deeply into the disputed factual questions at the summoning stage. The same has also been held in a catena of judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by various High Courts. 16. In the instant case, the primary contention of the petitioners is that the complaint case is barred by limitation and hence, the learned Trial Court erred in considering the same when the complaint was not even accompanied by any application for condonation of delay. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffidavit. 20. In the instant case, the memo of dishonor of cheque is of 17th October, 2019 and the legal demand notice was issued on 15th November, 2019 which is within the prescribed limitation period. Thus, there is no dispute regarding the same. 21. Further, 15 days' after the issuance of notice expired on 1st December, 2019. Therefore, in terms of the provisions and the settled position of law, excluding 2nd December, 2019, 30 days' period started from 3rd December, 2019 and the limitation period for filing the complaint expired on 2nd January, 2020. 22. The petitioners contend that since the complaint was filed on 10th January, 2020 in terms of the endorsement order dated 10th January, 2020 passed by the learned CMM, therefore, the complaint was filed beyond the limitation period and the learned MM erroneously passed the summoning order without taking into consideration that the limitation period to file the same had been expired and the said complaint was not accompanied by any application seeking condonation of delay. 23. As per the Delhi High Court calendar of the year 2020; 2nd January, 2020; 3rd January, 2020; 4th January, 2020 and 5th January, 2020 were holidays. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same, this Court is of the view that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioners herein had raised their grievance with regard to the limitation. Moreover, even if there is a delay, the Trial Court is well within its power to condone the delay and in terms of Section 142(b) of the NI Act, filing of an application for condonation of delay is not a statutory mandate, rather, the said provision merely states that cognizance of a complaint may be taken by the Court concerned even after the complaint has been filed after the expiry of the limitation period if the complainant satisfies the Court concerned for not making the complaint within the prescribed time. 32. Therefore, this Court, under Section 482 of the CrPC (now Section 528 of the BNSS) does not find any illegality in the impugned order considering the fact that there is a mere delay of 3 days in filing the complaint. Further, the merits of a case cannot be diluted by contending the ground of 3 days delay in filing the complaint. 33. However, it is pertinent to state here that the petitioners are always at liberty to press the issue of limitation before the Court concerned at the appropriate stage, if any. 34. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
