Kerala High Court
Capital Investments vs Usan Ali on 12 November, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
CRL.MC NO. 101 OF 2022
1
2025:KER:86303
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 101 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 23.10.2021 IN CRRP NO.88 OF
2017 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT -IV, THRISSUR /
III ADDITIONAL MACT/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THRISSUR
ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CRMP NO.2936 OF 2017 OF
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ,THRISSUR
PETITIONER/S:
CAPITAL INVESTMENTS
CAPITAL PLAZA, A. M. ROAD, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING PARTNER SHIBU
KURIAKOSE, THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER & BRANCH
MANAGER, PAUL JOSEPH, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O. JOSEPH K.
PAUL, KIZHAKKEDATH (H), THAIKKATTUSSERY P. O., THRISSUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 680 322.
BY ADVS.
SRI.LINDONS C.DAVIS
SMT.E.U.DHANYA
SMT.SWATHY A.P.
SRI.RAJITH DAVIS
RESPONDENT/S:
1 USAN ALI
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O. M. V. ALI, NOORJAHAN MANZIL, CHEERAMBAKAVU,
ANCHUMOORTHY, P. O. VADAKKENCHERY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 678683.
2 STATE OF KERALA
CRL.MC NO. 101 OF 2022
2
2025:KER:86303
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
BY ADVS.
SRI.ANIRUDH KADAVIL
SRI.K.V.ANIL
SMT.M.J.RAJASREE
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.PP.SMT.SEETHA S
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.11.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 101 OF 2022
3
2025:KER:86303
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 101 OF 2022
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of November, 2025
ORDER
The petitioner is the complainant in CMP No.2936/2017 on the file of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur (Trial Court), which has been filed against the 1st respondent alleging the commission of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('N.I.Act', in short).
2. The petitioner filed Annexure A1 complaint along with Annexure A2 petition to condone the delay of 18 days in filing the complaint. However, by the impugned Annexure A3 order, the Trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner did not let in oral evidence to prove the delay. Aggrieved by Annexure A3 order, the petitioner preferred Crl.R.P.No.88/2017 before the IVth Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur (Revisional Court). But, by Annexure A5 order the Revisional Court also dismissed the revision petition confirming Annexure A3 order on the ground that CRL.MC NO. 101 OF 2022 4 2025:KER:86303 there is no sufficient grounds to condone the delay. Annexures A3 and A5 orders are palpably wrong and erroneous. This Court in Sathya Narayanan K.S. v. Preethi and another (2015 (5) KHC 679) has categorically held that Section 142(b) of the N.I.Act should be liberally construed so as to give substantial justice to the party. Likewise in Abdurehiman v. Sethu Madhavan (2006 KHC 1113), this Court has held that there is no necessity to adduce oral evidence in order to condone the delay in filing an application under Section 142(b) of the N.I.Act. Hence Annexures A3 and A5 orders may be quashed.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had filed Annexure A1 complaint with a delay of 18 days. Along with the complaint the petitioner filed Annexure A2 petition to condone the delay of 18 days.
5. The proviso to clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 142(6) of the N.I.Act empowers the Court to take cognizance of offence under the Act after the prescribed CRL.MC NO. 101 OF 2022 5 2025:KER:86303 period, if the complainant satisfies the Court that he was precluded from filing the complaint within the prescribed time period, due to sufficient cause.
6. It is the petitioner's case in Annexure A2 petition that they did not file the complaint within the prescribed time period because the 1st respondent had approached them and assured to settle the matter. It was on the said belief that the petitioner did not file the complaint within the stipulated time period. Nevertheless, as the 1st respondent failed to settle the matter, the petitioner was constrained to file the complaint along with Annexure A2 petition to condone the delay of 18 days.
7. The Trial Court on the finding that the petitioner did not adduce oral evidence, dismissed the said application, which order was confirmed by the Revisional Court.
8. It is settled law that a litigation is to be decided on its merits rather than on technicalities.
9. Moreover in Sathya Narayanan's case (supra) this Court has held that Section 142(b) is to be liberally construed so as to ensure that the parties get substantial justice. Also in CRL.MC NO. 101 OF 2022 6 2025:KER:86303 Abdurehiman's case (supra), this Court has held that it is not necessary to adduce any oral evidence to prove a delay petition.
10. Taking into consideration the fact that the delay is only 18 days and that a substantial amount of Rs.4,23,350/- is involved in the cheques in question, I am of the firm view that a lenient view is to be taken in the matter, but subject to the condition that the petitioner mitigates the hardship and inconvenience caused to the 1st respondent by paying him costs, which will meet the ends of justice.
Accordingly, in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I allow the Criminal Miscellaneous Case in the following manner:
(i) Annexures A3 and A5 orders are set aside, subject to the condition that the petitioner pays the 1 st respondent a cost of Rs.10,000/- within two weeks from today and files a memo before the Trial Court.
(ii) On the memo being filed, Annexure A1 complaint will stand resurrected and the Trial Court shall proceed CRL.MC NO. 101 OF 2022 7 2025:KER:86303 with the complaint in accordance with law.
(iii) Needless to mention, if the petitioner fails to pay the cost as mentioned above, Annexures A3 and A5 orders will stand confirmed.
sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE rkc/12.11.25 CRL.MC NO. 101 OF 2022 8 2025:KER:86303 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 101/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE C.M.P.NO.2935/2017 FILED BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR.
Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE C.M.P.NO.2936/2017 FILED BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR DATED 14.06.2017.
Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.10.2017 IN C.M.P.NO.2936/2017 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT.
Annexure A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE CRL. R.P. NO.88/2017 FILED BEFORE THE IVTH ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR.
Annexure A5 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.10.2021 IN CRL. R. P. NO.88/2017 OF THE IVTH ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR.