BRIJ KISHORE SHARMA Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard and perused the impugned summoning order passed by the trial court, and the order dated 27.04.2005, passed by Sessions Judge, Haridwar, in Criminal Revision No. 92 of 2005.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that complainants filed the criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the petitioners on which after recording statement of the complainants under Section 200, and that of the witnesses under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners were summoned by the trial court. It is alleged in the criminal complaint that cheque No. 866223 dated 15.08.2004, for an amount of Rs. 1,37,400/- was given to the complainants which was dishonoured by the bank.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that before expiry of 15 days of receipt of notice, the criminal complaint was not maintainable. However, in view of principle of law laid down in Hemant Sharma Vs. Kishorilal Vanshkar 2009 (1) DCR 578 (M.P.), Smt. Hem Lata Gupta Vs. State of U.P. 2003 (1) DCR 36 (Allahabad), Rejikumar Vs. Sukumaran 2003 (1) DCR 39 (Kerala) and Firm Naveen Project Ltd. and another Vs. State of Rajasthan and another 2005 (2) DCR 534 (Rajasthan), this Court is of the view that there is no illegality in taking the cognizance by issuing summoning order after15 days of the receipt of notice, even if the complaint is filed before expiry of 15 days of receipt of notice.