Mahendra Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 2274 UK

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 2274 UK
Judgement Date : 1 October, 2024

Uttarakhand High Court

Mahendra Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 1 October, 2024

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

 Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 517 of 2024


Mahendra Singh                              ...... Petitioner

                              Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and Another          ..... Respondents


Presents:-
Mr. Tajhar Qayyum, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.C. Dumka, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.



                         JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this petition is

made to the following:-

(i) The order dated 04.09.2023, passed

in Misc. Criminal Case No.214 of

2022, Lalit Negi Vs. Mahendra Singh,

by the court of Judicial Magistrate,

Ramnagar, District Nainital ("the

case"). By it, the delay in filing

complaint under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

(""the Act") has been condoned and

application under Section 142 of the

Act has been allowed.

(ii) The summoning order dated

28.11.2023, passed in CriminalCase

No.1041 of 2023, Lalit Singh Negi Vs.

Mahendra Singh, under Section 138

of the Act, by the court of Additiional

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramnagar,

District Nainital.

(iii) The judgment and order dated

04.06.2024, passed in Criminal

Revision No.21 of 2023, Mahendra

Singh Vs. Lalit Singh Negi and

Another, by the court of Additional

Sessions Judge, Ramnagar, District

Nainital ("the revision"). By it, the

order dated 04.09.2023, passed in the

case, has been upheld.

(iv) The challenge has also been made to

the entire proceedings of the case.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. The case is based on a complaint filed by

the respondent no.2 (""the complainant") under Section

138 of the Act. Before filing the complaint, the

complainant filed an application under Section 142 of

the Act seeking permission to file the complaint beyond

one month, as specified under Section 142(1)(b) of the

Act. This application was filed on the ground that due to

COVID-19 pandemic and family conditions, the

complainant could not contact his lawyer, which

resulted in delay in filing the complaint. This application

under Section 142 of the Act has been allowed by the

order dated 04.09.2023, which has been upheld in the

revision. In fact, prior to that, the summoning order had

already been passed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that the complaint was filed by 52 days' delay

and the reason is not good and sufficient for

condonation of delay. He would submit that financial

condition may not be a ground to condone delay.

5. No argument has been made on the

summoning order dated 28.11.2023. Basically challenge

is made to the order dated 04.09.2023 and the judgment

and order dated 04.06.2024, passed in the revision.

6. It may be noted that before passing the

order on 04.09.2023, on an application filed under

Section 142 of the Act by the complainant, the petitioner

was heard. He had raised objections then also. Section

142(1)(b) of the Act reads as follows:-

"142. Cognizance of offences.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),--

(a) ........................................

(b) such complaint is made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under clause

(c) of the proviso to section 138:

Provided that the cognizance of a complaint may be taken by the Court after the prescribed period, if the complainant satisfies the Court that he he had sufficient cause for not making a complaint within such period;