Allahabad High Court
Mithlesh Kumar Karna vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 August, 2019
Bench: Rajiv Joshi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22433 of 2019
Applicant :- Mithlesh Kumar Karna
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Heard Sri Prateek J. Nagar, holding brief of Sri Saurabh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 14.03.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1736 of 2018 (Smt. Ashma Vs. Mithilesh Kumar Karna) under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), P.S. Kasna, District Gautam Budh Nagar, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate II, Gautam Budh Nagar.
It reflects from the record that a complaint under Section 138 of the Act was filed by the complainant-opposite party no.2 for dishonouring of cheque of Rs. 1,65,000/-. The complaint was beyond the prescribed period of thirty days alongwith an application for condonation of delay. The Magistrate vide order dated 10.12.2018 condoned the delay in filing the complaint and registered the same and fixed the date for recording of statement of the complainant and witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Subsequently, on 14.3.2019 after recording prima facie satisfaction, summoning order was passed and the applicant was summoned for the trial.
Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that before condoning the delay, notice must be given to the applicant even there is no prima facie case, which attracts offence punishable under Section 138/148 of the Act.
I have considered the argument so raised by learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record.
Proviso (b) of Section 142 of the Act, which empowers the Magistrate to condone the delay, is quoted hereunder:
"(b) such complaint is made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under clause (c) of the proviso to section 138:
[Provided that the cognizance of a complaint may be taken by the Court after the prescribed period, if the complainant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making a complaint within such period.]"
From perusal of the aforesaid proviso, it is clear that there is no necessity for issuing any notice before condoning the delay to the accused persons and subsequently, the accused was summoned for the trial. Even otherwise from the averment made in the complaint, prima facie case for offence under Section 138 of the Act is made out.
I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned herein.
The application lacks merit and is, accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 1.8.2019
Noman
