JUDGEMENT
Anand Byrareddy, J. -
(1.)Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner was the accused before the court below, against whom proceedings were initiated by the respondent for an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'NI Act', for brevity).
(2.)It transpires that on 20.12.2006, the petitioner and the respondent had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding, pursuant to which, the petitioner had issued a cheque. It transpires that there was a difference of opinion between the petitioner and the respondent and the petitioner was under pressure to succumb to the demands of the respondent and was compelled to issue the cheque as protection money to live in peace, for otherwise, it was threatened that the petitioner's existence would be made difficult in the area, where he had purchased the house. It then transpires that the cheque had been presented for encashment by the respondent and was dishonoured. It is in that background that a legal notice is said to have been issued, but which was never served on the present petitioner. However, the respondent filed a private complaint on 29.5.2007 and it was beyond the time prescribed under the NI Act. The complaint was not accompanied with any application seeking condonation of delay, which is provided for under the proviso to Sec. 142 of the NI Act.
It transpires that it is only on 30.6.2007, the respondent, realising that there was a delay in filing the complaint, has chosen to file an application seeking condonation of delay. The application, however, was filed by the counsel appearing for the respondent, without any affidavit of the complainant accompanying the same, assigning a vague reason that the respondent was suffering from 'water disease', which is unknown to medical sciences. It transpires that the court below had proceeded to entertain the application. The petitioner was issued notice on the application seeking condonation of delay and he had promptly entered appearance and had filed objections, to the effect that an application could not be filed belatedly seeking condonation of delay and it certainly could not be filed by the advocate for the complainant, unless it was supported by an affidavit of the complainant assigning cogent reasons for the delay. And on this note, the court had ordered for an inquiry on the application and even during the course of the inquiry, it was elicited in the cross-examination of the complainant by the petitioner that the medical certificates sought to be produced could not support the case for the delay, as it pertained to the period much later to the period during which he was said to be indisposed. Notwithstanding the same, the court below has condoned the delay and has proceeded further. It is at that stage that the present petition is filed.
(3.)This court, while taking note of the judgment of the Supreme Court, in case of Pavan Kumar Ralli Vs. Maninder Singh, AIR 2014 SC 3512 , had admitted the matter and had granted stay of further proceedings of the matter before the court below. It is thereafter that the present petition is posted before this court for hearing, a full 7 years after it was admitted and stay order was granted.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.