Justice R. Narayan Pishardi of Kerala High Court was dealing with Section 482 CrPC Petition titled Sindhu S.Panicker vs. A.Balakrishnan which sought quashing of a Cheating Criminal Complaint in a Cheque Bounce Case.

The transaction alleged by the complainant was of 10.04.2007 while the cheque allegedly given by the accused to the complainant is dated 16.05.2007, the complaint under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code was filed against the accused only on 29.03.2011.

Accused had requested the complainant to grant them two years time to repay the amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum but did not make the payment as promised. Criminal Complaint was filled and Drawer of the Cheque were summoned as Accused in Cheating.

Challenging the same the Petitioners urged the following two grounds to quash the proceedings initiated against them on the Grounds :
(1) There is undue and unexplained delay in filing the complaint
(2) The averments in the complaint do not constitute the ingredients of an offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C.

Petition raised the issue as to whether the complaint be quashed on the ground of undue delay, even though it is not barred by limitation as prescribed under the Code.

While concluding that when no period of limitation is prescribed for filing the complaint, it cannot be quashed on the mere plea of delay, the Kerala High Court Judge observed:

The general rule of criminal justice is that "a crime never dies". Mere delay in approaching a court of law would not by itself afford a ground for dismissing the case though it may be a relevant circumstance in reaching a final verdict (See Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty : AIR 2007 SC 2762). When no period of limitation is prescribed for filing the complaint, it cannot be thrown out on the sole ground of delay.
The question of delay in filing a complaint may be a circumstance to be taken into consideration in arriving at the final decision. But, by itself, it affords no ground for dismissing the complaint. Prosecution should not be quashed on the ground that there was delay in instituting the complaint. Inordinate and unexplained delay in filing a complaint regarding commission of an offence would certainly a factor to be taken into account by the court in taking the final decision in the case. But, when the complaint is not barred by limitation, it cannot be thrown out at the threshold, merely on the ground of undue delay.

The court even referred to a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Lakshman v. State of Karnataka in which it was held that in a given case, whether there is any mens rea on the part of the accused or not is a matter which is required to be considered having
regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and contents of the complaint etc. It has also been held that in a petition under
Section 482 of the Code, it is fairly well settled that it is not permissible for the High Court to record any findings, wherever there are factual disputes. It has been further held that mere filing of the suits for recovery of the money and complaint filed under Section 138 of the N.I.Act by itself is no ground to quash the proceeding.

Bench further observed-

It is true that the complainant did not institute any complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act inspite of sending notice to the first accused/first petitioner. But, the first petitioner had sent reply notice stating that she had no account in the bank on which the cheque was allegedly drawn. Even if a person has been tried and dealt with for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, on similar facts, he can be subsequently tried for an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. The reason is that the ingredients of the two offences are different.

Share this Document :

Picture Source :