C K D Farma vs State Of U.P. And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 36272 ALL

Allahabad High Court

C K D Farma vs State Of U.P. And Another on 5 November, 2024

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:173107
 
Court No. - 79
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24469 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- C K D Farma
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Shree Prakash Giri
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.
 

1. Heard Mr. Shree Prakash Giri, learned Counsel for the applicant and Shri Kamlesh Kumar Tripathi, learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant application has been moved on behalf of the applicant to quash the impugned summoning order dated 18.07.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Meerut in Complaint Case No.2837 of 2023 (S.S.M. Drugs v. C.K.D. Pharma), under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Ganganagar, District Meerut.

3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that complaint is itself time barred. As per the complainant, demand notice was received by the applicant on 28.12.2022 and complaint could have been filed by 27.01.2023, but the court below, merely on the basis of separate application filed by the complainant, condoned the delay though no averment was made in the complaint regarding explanation of delay in filing the complaint. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Virendra Prasad Shah v. State of Bihar, (2019) 7 SCC 273 in which the Apex Court observed if necessary averment has been made in the complaint regarding condonation of delay then Court is within its jurisdiction to condone the delay on the basis of those averments itself.

4. Per Contra, learned AGA submitted that there is no requirement that the averment regarding condonation of delay should be made in the complaint itself and a separate application for condoning the delay can also be made with the necessary averments.

5. After considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, this Court found that though complaint was time barred, but on the application filed by the complainant for condoning the delay, the delay was condoned by the order dated 12.5.2023 with the cost of Rs.2000/- and, thereafter, cognizance was taken and summoning order was passed on 18.7.2023, therefore, at the time of taking cognizance, the court below has already condoned the delay on the basis of separate application and judgment relied by the counsel for the applicant does not prohibit the filing of separate application for condonation of delay in filing the complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act.

6. In view of the above, this Court does not find any good ground to quash the impugned proceeding. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed.

Order Date :- 5.11.2024

A.N. Mishra