Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramsundar vs Mahesh on 14 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33349
1 CRA-10156-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 14th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 10156 of 2022
RAMSUNDAR
Versus
MAHESH
Appearance:
Mr. Ritu Raj Bhatnagar - Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Jay Sharma - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
This Criminal Appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 is preferred for leave to appeal against the judgment dated
07.04.2021 in Criminal Case No.2501610/2016 (Annexure-A/1) by the
JMFC, Ratlam whereby the respondent has been acquitted from the charges
of 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 on the ground that the
complaint was premature as the notice was served on 11.06.2016 and the
complaint was filed on 21.06.2016.
02. Necessary facts of the case are that a complaint was filed before
the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ratlam on 21.06.2016 alleging dishonour
of Cheque No.363433 dated 01.01.2016 issued by the respondent in favour
of the appellant for discharge of liability of Rs.1,50,000/- and dishonour of
cheque on 07.06.2016 due to insufficient funds presented through Punjab
National Bank, Ratlam. Thereafter, a notice dated 10.06.2016 was issued
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33349
2 CRA-10156-2022
through RAD mode and the same was served upon the respondent on
11.06.2016 but the respondent did not paid the amount.
03. After recording the evidence, the trial Court found proved that the
respondent issued a cheque in favour of the appellant and the same was
dismissed due to insufficient fund. Further recorded the finding that the
notice was issued on 10.06.2016 and the notice was served on 11.06.2016
and respondent replied the notice on 13.06.2016 vide Exhibit-P/6 but the
complaint was filed on 21.06.2016 without waiting period of fifteen days and
dismissed the complaint referring to the case of Yogendra Pratap Singh vs.
Savitri Pandey and Ors. (MANU/SC/0843/2014).
04. Challenging the acquittal, this appeal has been preferred with a
specific prayer that he be permitted to file another complaint after complying
the necessary requirements. He relied upon the judgment passed in Yogendra
Pratap Singh vs. Savitri Pandey and Ors. (MANU/SC/0843/2014) and
Gajanand Burange vs. Laxmi Chand Goyal; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 682.
05. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the appeal referring to
the case of Vishal Gupta vs. Kishan Batham (Criminal Appeal
No.11023/2022, order dated 04.10.2023) by the High Court of M.P., Bench
at Gwalior.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
06. Para 8 of Gajanand Burange (supra) is being reproduced as below:-
8. However, on behalf of the respondent, it has been urged
that the second issue which was raised before the three-Judge
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33349
3 CRA-10156-2022
Bench has been dealt with in the following terms:
"41... Now, since our answer to Question (i) is in the
negative, we observe that the payee or the holder in due
course of the cheque may file a fresh complaint within
one month from the date of decision in the criminal case
and, in that event, delay in filing the complaint will be
treated as having been condoned under the proviso to
clause (b) of Section 142 of the NI Act. This direction
shall be deemed to be applicable to all such pending
cases where the complaint does not proceed further in
view of our answer to Question (i). As we have already
held that a complaint filed before the expiry of 15 days
from the date of receipt of notice issued under clause (c)
of the proviso to Section 138 is not maintainable, the
complainant cannot be permitted to present the very
same complaint at any later stage. His remedy is only to
file a fresh complaint; and if the same could not be filed
within the time prescribed under Section 142(b), his
recourse is to seek the benefit of the proviso, satisfying
the court of sufficient cause. Question (ii) is answered
accordingly."
07. The matter of Vishal Gupta (supra) does not address the
controversy involved in the present case.
08. In view of the aforesaid law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Gajanand Burange (supra), the appeal is disposed off with the
liberty to the appellant to file fresh complaint before the court concerned and
the trial Court, if satisfied, shall consider the same in accordance with law.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
VS
