Punjab-Haryana High Court
Om Parkash vs Satbir Singh Kundu And Another on 13 March, 2024
Author: Pankaj Jain
Bench: Pankaj Jain
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036086
2024:PHHC:036086
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
274 CRM-M-4532-2022
Date of decision:- 13.03.2024
Om Parkash ...Petitioner
Versus
Satbir Singh Kundu and anr. ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present : Mr. Tanmoy Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Manoj Sood, Advocate
for the respondents.
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
seeking quashing of the order dated 20.11.2020 passed by CJM, Palwal
which stands affirmed by the Revisional Court vide order dated
29.10.2021. Petitioner filed complaint under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act accompanied by an application seeking
condonation of delay as the filing of the complaint was delayed by 4
months. In order of explain the delay, the petitioner relied upon medical
condition of his mother and in order to demonstrate the same relied upon
medical record showing that in the relevant period she underwent many
medical tests including ultrasound, blood tests, ECG etc. Both the Courts
below found that though the petitioner has been able to prove that her
mother was suffering from ailment in the relevant period but still has not
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036086
2024:PHHC:036086
CRM-M-4532-2022 2.
been able to explain the delay.
2. Moreso, when it is not the case of the petitioner that his
mother was indoor patient for any period of time.
3. Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned
orders contends that once it was proved on record that the mother of the
petitioner was suffering from ailment, petitioner had made out sufficient
ground for condoning the delay and the Courts ought to have been more
liberal in considering the same in the background of the fact that the
petitioner himself is a disabled person.
4. Per Contra, counsel for the respondents, submits that both
the Courts below have rightly considered the plea raised by the petitioner
and have passed well-reasoned order holding that the cause pleaded was
not sufficient to condone the delay and there is no reason for this Court
to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to interfere.
5. Having heard the regular contentions of the parties and
having going through the records of the case, this Court finds that as per
settled law, delay in filing complaint can be condoned after amendment
in the provision under proviso to Section 142(b) of the Negotiable
Instruments Act. Reliance can be placed upon in "Pawan Kumar Ralli
Vs. Maninder Singh Narula" 2014 (15) SCC 245, wherein it has held
as under:-
"Proviso appended to clause (b) of Section 142 of the
Act was inserted by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment
and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002 and the legislative
intent was, no doubt, in order to overcome the technicality
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036086
2024:PHHC:036086
CRM-M-4532-2022 3.
of limitation period. The Statement of Objects and Reasons
appended to the Amendment Bill, discretion to the Court to
take cognizance of offence even after expiry of the period of
limitation [see MSR Leathers v.S. Palaniappan, 2012(4)
RCR (Civil )485 : 2012(4) Recent Apex Judgements
(R.A.J) 608 : (2013)1 SCC 177]. Only with a view to
obviate the difficulties on the part of the Complainant,
Parliament inserted the proviso to clause (b) of Section 142
of the Act in the year 2002. It confers a jurisdiction upon
the Court to condone the delay [See Subodh S. Salaskar v.
Jayparkash M. Shah, 2008(3) RCR (Criminal) 875 : 2008
(3) RCR (Civil) 904 : 2008 (4) Recent Apex Court
Judgments (R.A.J) 654 : (2008) 13 SCC 689]."
But the delay has to be explained and the applicant is
required to make out sufficient cause to seek condonation of delay.
6. In the present case, though the petitioner has been able to
prove the ailment of his mother but could not explain that it was a
sufficient cause calling for condonation of delay. Onus laid heavily upon
him.
7. Keeping in view the aforesaid settled proposition of law,
this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the orders passed by
the courts below.
8. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed.
(PANKAJ JAIN)
JUDGE
13.03.2024
spn
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
