Jharkhand High Court
G. Eswara Rao vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 October, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
[2025:JHHC:30825]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.2517 of 2017
------
G. Eswara Rao, Son of Late China Sanyasi Raju, Resident of
Kanchara Street, Rajam, Post Office and Police Station- Rajam,
District- Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. M/S Adhunik Fuels Private Limited, represented by its
Director Vijay Kumar Lohariwal, Son of Shri Om Prakash
Lohariwal, Residing at Urmila Tower, Bank More, Post
Office and Police Station- Bank More, Dhanbad, District-
Dhanbad.
... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Praveen Shankar Dayal, Advocate
For the State : Md. Azeemuddin, Addl.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings and prosecution as
well as the order dated 21.12.2015 passed in C.P. Case No.2797 of 2015 by the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad whereby and where under the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad has taken cognizance of the offence punishable
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner
despite there being a delay in filing the complaint, involving the offence
[2025:JHHC:30825]
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881, without
giving any notice to the petitioner and without recording any express
satisfaction in the impugned order taking cognizance dated 21.12.2015, about
condoning of the delay in filing the complaint.
3. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner as an
additional ground, that the petitioner is no more the Director of the Company,
for the dishonour of the cheque issued by which company, this complaint has
been filed and he was never the Managing Director and Chairman of the said
Company; but keeping in view the description of the petitioner in the
complaint that he is Managing Director and Chairman of the said company and
in view of the principle of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
the case of Pawan Kumar Goel vs. State of U.P. & Another reported in 2023 (2)
East Cr. C 55 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated
that merely being a Director of a company is not sufficient to make the person
liable under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and to make out a
Director liable for prosecution, there has to be specific averments that a
Director was In-charge of and responsible to the company for conduct of its
business, but in case of Managing Director and Joint Managing Director they
being admittedly In-charge of the company and responsible to the company for
the conduct of the business, no such specific averments is required.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the said ground and
confines to the only ground that the petitioner has neither been issued any
notice nor has he been given any opportunity of being heard, even though the
complaint was filed after a delay and the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad
has not passed any express order condoning the delay in filing the said
[2025:JHHC:30825]
complaint. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition be allowed.
5. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the
opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the
petitioner made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition but fairly submit that
notice was not issued to the petitioner, who was the accused person of the case
before condoning of the delay.
6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully
going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention
here that it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of P.K. Choudhury vs. Commander, 48
BRTF (GREF) reported in AIR 2008 SC 1937 wherein, in a case relating to the
offences punishable under Section 166 and 167 of Indian Penal Code, when a
complaint petition was filed belatedly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
observed that the delay in launching the prosecution could not have been
condoned without notices to the accused person of the case and in such a case,
the accused person was entitled to get an opportunity of being heard before the
delay could be condoned. In the case of Yogendra Pratap Singh vs. Savitri
Pandey & Another reported in (2014) 10 SCC 713, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India held that the remedy to the complainant is only to file a fresh
complaint and if the same could not be filed within the time prescribed under
Section 142 (b) of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the recourse of the
complainant is to seek the benefit of the proviso satisfying the Court of
sufficient cause.
[2025:JHHC:30825]
7. In view of the settled principle of law, the corollary is that the accused
person does not come into picture at all till the process is issued but this
position of law is true when there is no delay in launching the prosecution. But
in case of delay in launching the prosecution, certainly accused person of the
case is entitled to get an opportunity of being heard before the delay could be
condoned.
8. In view of para-5 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Sharadchandra Vinayak Dongre &
Others reported in (1995) 1 SCC 42, since the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Dhanbad has neither given any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner,
who is the accused persons of the case, before condoning the delay nor any
express order regarding condoning the delay has been passed by the trial court,
this is a fit case where the impugned order dated 21.12.2015 passed in C.P. Case
No.2797 of 2015 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad is liable to be
quashed and set aside and the matter be remitted back to the court concerned
to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21.12.2015 passed in C.P. Case
No.2797 of 2015 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad is quashed and set
aside and the matter is remitted back to the court concerned to pass a fresh
order in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of being heard to the
petitioner. Both the petitioner and the opposite party No.2 are directed to
appear before the learned trial court on or before 15.11.2025 for taking
instruction regarding further proceedings of the case.
10. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed to the
aforesaid extent only.
[2025:JHHC:30825]
11. In view of disposal of the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, the interim
relief granted earlier vide order dated 14.12.2017 is vacated.
12. The Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 06th of October, 2025
AFR/ Saroj
Uploaded on 07/10/2025
