MUNIRATHINAMMAL Vs. T.E.ARUNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision is directed against the order dtd. 4/2/2017 passed in C.M.P.No.7150 (A)/2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner herein under Sec. 142 (b) for condoning the delay of 353 days in filing the complaint under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The petitioner is the complainant before the learned Judicial Magistrate. She preferred a complaint under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act alleging that the accused issued a cheque for Rs.25,00,000.00 (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs) towards repayment of loan advanced by her; that when the said cheque was presented for collection the same was returned by the Banker for the reasons 'Drawer Signature differs'; that when she had issued statutory notice that respondent issued a reply; that the complainant issued rejoinder to the said reply and that the complaint was filed with the delay of 353 days on 4/8/2016.

(2.) The Complainant filed a petition under Sec. 142 (b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act and prayed for condonation of delay stating that she could not file the complaint within the statutory period because she was taking care of her ailing Mother in law and she had gone on a pilgrimage to Himalayas, Amarnath, Kedernath and Kasi and; that she delayed the filing of complaint since the accused promised her to pay the said amount. The respondent filed a counter denying all the averments.

(3.) The learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the petition on the ground that the reasons furnished in the petition for condonation of delay was not sufficient and further held that the fact that the accused promised to pay and hence the complainant delayed the filing on the complaint cannot be believed. The learned Judicial Magistrate further held that the complainant has remedy before the Civil Forum to recover the aforesaid debt.