[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Harikrishnan K.G vs Sujamol K.S on 15 January, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
CRL.MC NO. 2035 OF 2025 1
2026:KER:3288
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 25TH POUSHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 2035 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 01.02.2025 IN CRMP
NO.5428 OF 2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,RANNI
PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:
HARIKRISHNAN K.G,
AGED 42 YEARS
KALEEKAL MADATHIL HOUSE,PERUNADU MURI, PERUNADU
VILLAGE,RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689711
BY ADVS.
SRI.JACOB P.ALEX
SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX
SHRI.MANU SANKAR P.
SHRI.AMAL AMIR ALI
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED:
SUJAMOL K.S,
VALLECHALIL HOUSE, CHOORAKULANGARA ROAD,
ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686631
BY ADV SHRI.CHACKOCHEN VITHAYATHIL
SRI.M.P.PRASANTH, PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
15.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 2035 OF 2025 2
2026:KER:3288
ORDER
Dated this the 15th day of January, 2026
The petitioner had filed Crl.M.P No.5428 of 2024
before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate,
Ranni ('Trial Court', in short) against the respondent
alleging that she has committed an offence punishable
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 ('NI Act', in short).
2. Along with the said complaint, the
petitioner also filed Crl.M.P No.5818 of 2024 (Annexure
A2) to condone the delay of 39 days in filing the
complaint. The petitioner states that, it is only because
the petitioner could not trace the address of the
respondent, the complaint could not be filed on time.
However, by the impugned Annexures A3 and A4 orders,
the learned Magistrate dismissed the application and
consequently the complaint also. Annexures A3 and A4
orders are ex-facie erroneous and unsustainable in law.
CRL.MC NO. 2035 OF 2025 3
2026:KER:3288
The learned Magistrate has failed to consider the proviso
to Clause (b) of Section 142 of the NI Act which empowers
the Trial Court to condone the delay. This Court in
Areeplavan Financiers, Thodupuzha v. State of
Kerala and Another [ILR 2020 (2) Kerala 325] has
succinctly held that a liberal approach should be adopted
in condoning the delay. Hence, Annexure A3 and A4
orders may be set aside.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner
reiterates the contentions in the Crl.M.C.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent
submits that, even if the delay is condoned, the complaint
is not maintainable in law since, admittedly, notice was
not served on the respondent. Therefore, going by the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shakti
Travel & Tours v. State of Bihar and Another [(2002)
9 SCC 415], the Crl.M.C may be dismissed.
2026:KER:3288
6. The short point that emerges for
consideration is whether the petitioner has stated
sufficient reasons to condone the delay of 39 days in filing
the complaint.
7. In Annexure A2 application, the petitioner
has specifically asserted that, it is only because the legal
notice that was sent to the respondent returned with an
endorsement 'addressee left', and the petitioner could not
trace the correct address of the respondent, he could not
file the complaint within the prescribed statutory time
period.
8. Admittedly, the respondent did not contest
the application. The learned Magistrate, after hearing the
learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the
assertions in the application, held that, as the petitioner
had taken steps to effect service of lawyer notice on the
respondent, there was no legal impediment for the
petitioner to have instituted the complaint within the
prescribed time period, especially because there is no
2026:KER:3288
statutory mandate that the complainant has to find out the
address and whereabouts of the accused before
instituting a complaint under Section 138 NI Act.
9. While considering an application to
condone the delay, the courts are only expected to
ascertain whether the applicant has mentioned sufficient
reasons to condone the delay. The courts are not bound
to go into the merits of the original proceedings.
10. It is also trite law that the court should
always make an endevour to dispose of a matter on its
merits rather than on technicalities or for default.
11. The contention raised by the respondent
that, since notice was not duly served on the respondent,
the complaint itself is not maintainable is a matter that is
to be decided at the time of trial. Therefore, I am not
impressed by the said submission.
12. On an overall consideration of the facts,
materials on record and the rival submissions made
across the bar, particularly the reasons stated in
CRL.MC NO. 2035 OF 2025 6
2026:KER:3288
Annexure A2 affidavit, I am satisfied that the petitioner
has stated sufficient reasons to condone the delay of 39
days in filing the complaint. Nonetheless, since there has
been some laches on the part of the petitioner, I am of
the definite view that the said hardship caused to the
respondent, can be mitigated by ordering the petitioner to
pay the respondent a reasonable amount as cost.
In the result, the Crl.M.C is allowed in the
following manner:
(i) Annexures A3 and A4 orders are set aside.
(ii) Annexure A2 application would stand allowed,
subject to the condition that the petitioner pays
the learned counsel for the respondent before this
Court a cost of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand
five hundred only), within a week from the date of
receipt of a copy this order, and file a memo to
that effect before the Trial Court. If the said
memo along with the copy of this order is filed,
the Trial Court is directed to consider and dispose
2026:KER:3288
of the complaint in accordance with law and as
expeditiously as possible.
(iii) It is made clear that this Court has only
considered the delay petition and has not gone
into the merits of the matter. It will be up to the
parties to raise all their contentions before the
Trial Court, who in turn is directed to consider
and dispose of the complaint untrammelled by
any observation made in this order.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
NAB
CRL.MC NO. 2035 OF 2025 8
2026:KER:3288
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 2035 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT NUMBERED AS
CRL.MP NO. 5428 OF 2024 DATED 24.09.2024
ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION TO CONDONE THE
DELAY DATED 24-09-2024 NUMBERED AS CRL.MP
NO. 5818 OF 2024 IN CRL.MP. NO. 5427 OF
2024 ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT-I, RANNY
ANNEXURE A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
01.02.2025 IN CRL.MP NO. 5818 OF 2024
ANNEXURE A4 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
01.02.2025 IN CRL.MP NO. 5428 OF 2024
