Krushna Prasad Sabat And vs Nirma Consumer Care Limited
2023 Latest Caselaw 69 Ori

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                   CRLMC No.2498 of 2016


            Krushna Prasad Sabat and           ....                     Petitioners
            another
                                                      Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate
                                          -versus-

            Nirma Consumer Care Limited, ....                       Opposite Party
            Ahmadabad
                                                    Mr. R.K. Satapathy, Advocate


                                       CORAM:
                                 JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

                                             ORDER

03.01.2023 Order No.

10. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

2. Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that when the cheque was issued on 02.03.2006, how come the same was presented before that date and the same was returned unpaid back to the complainant on 14.02.2006 and, therefore, there are some manipulation as well as forgery in issuing and presenting the cheque and, hence, the proceeding itself is not maintainable on that score. It is further submitted by him that after the advent of the judgment in Dasrath Rup Singh Rathord, the criminal complaint was returned to the complainant for presentation before the proper Court and, accordingly, the complaint was filed before the learned

S.D.J.M., Paralakhemundi, but, subsequently, thereafter the law on territorial jurisdiction for filing of N.I. Act was amended w.e.f. 29.12.2015 and, therefore, it was thus required to be prosecuted in the Court at Ahmadabad. However, subsequent to the amendment of law with effect from 29.12.2015, the complainant has not taken any steps to get the complaint transferred to the Court at Ahmadabad and, in the meantime, around more than eight years has elapsed and the criminal complaint itself is thereby not maintainable and liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.

3. On the other hand, Mr. R.K. Satapathy, learned counsel for the O.P. submits that the CRLMC itself is not maintainable before this Court in view of the fact that the firm has not been arraigned as a party, either as petitioner or O.P., but such firm is mandatorily required to be made as a party. He further submits that when the cognizance was taken by the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.35, Ahmadabad, this Court lacks jurisdiction to deal with the matter and, therefore, the present CRLMC is not maintainable before this Court in the eye of law. It is further submitted by him that due to COVID-19 pandemic, the O.P. could not take any step to get the complaint transferred to the Court at Ahmadabad and, therefore, no latches or delay can be attributable to the complainant. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the O.P.-complainant submits for some time to file some authority of the Apex Court and High Court in the matter.

4. Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that he will file a short written notes of submission supported with some citations in the matter by the next date.

5. Accordingly, list this matter on 17.01.2023.

6. Interim order passed earlier shall continue till the next date.

(G. Satapathy) Judge Subhasmita