Reshami Kumari vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 3886 Jhar

                                        1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   Cr.M.P. No. 1093 of 2022

   Reshami Kumari                                             ......    Petitioner
                              Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Uday Shankar Singh                               ...... Opposite Parties
                   ---------

CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
                          ---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advocate
For the State      : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Subrat Kishore Singh

6/Dated: 22/09/2022

Heard Mr. Ankit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shiv

Shankar Kumar, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Subrat Kishore Singh, learned

counsel for the O.P. No. 2.

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing of entire

criminal proceeding including cognizance order dated 06.12.2021 in connection with

Complaint Case No. 1111 of 2021, pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Deoghar.

Mr. Ankit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that

O.P. No. 2 has presented cheque bearing no. 358233 dated 07.10.2021 of the amount

of Rs. 3,70,000/- which got dishonoured and return memo dated 11.10.2021 was

provided to O.P. No. 2 by the concerned bank. He further submits that notice was

issued under the N.I. Act by the O.P. No. 2 on 18.10.2021 which was delivered to the

petitioner on 01.11.2021 and the complaint was filed on 08.11.2021 by the O.P. No.

2. He further submits that the complaint was required to be filed in the light of

section 138 and 142(b) of the N.I. Act as there is statutory provision of time for filing

the complaint however, it was filed prematurely. He submits that the complaint was

filed after seven days from the date of receiving of the said notice however, the

complaint was required to be filed on 16.11.2021.

Mr. Subrat Kishore Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P.

No. 2 submits that there are provision in the light of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court that complaint can be filed if the case is premature.

In view of the aforesaid facts and considering that the complaint has

been filed prematurely, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the light of

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Yogendra Pratap Singh Vs.

Savitri Pandey and Another" (2014) 10 SCC 713.

Accordingly, the cognizance order dated 06.12.2021 passed in

connection with Complaint Case No. 1111 of 2021, pending in the Court of learned

S.D.J.M., Deoghar is hereby set aside. However, in the light of above judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 41, the O.P. No. 2 cannot be left with remediless. The

O.P. No. 2 is at liberty to file fresh complaint within 30 days from today.

This petition stands disposed of in the above terms. Interim order is

vacated.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/