RUPESH Vs. AKLIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition preferred under section 397 read with section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter, for short 'the Code), calling in question the legality, correctness and propriety of order dated 22.9.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Manawar, District Dhar in Cr. Revision No. 120/2016, whereby Complaint Case proceedings in Cr. Case No. 126/2015 initiated at the instance of complainant-Rupesh Johri were directed to be quashed on the ground that the complaint was barred by time.

(2.) Relevant facts, briefly stated, are that the petitioner/complainant filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter, for short, 'the Act') averring that cheque dated 28.7.2014 drawn on State Bank of India for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- issued by the respondent-accused towards discharge of legally enforceable debt/liability was dishonoured by the banker on 13.9.2014 with remarks "Funds Insufficient". It was further averred in the petition that on a legal notice issued on 16.9.2014, the amount under the cheque was not paid by the respondent within the statutory period, however, the petitioner did not receive the acknowledgement of the notice dated 16.9.2014, therefore, he kept on waiting and on 7.10.2014, filed an application in the Post Office, Manawar for acknowledgement of his notice, whereupon, he was informed that the notice was delivered on 16.9.2014 itself.

(3.) The learned Magistrate took cognisance in the matter and directed issue of summons to the respondent. The order taking cognisance was challenged by the respondent by way of Cr. Revision No. 120/2016 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Manawar on the ground that the complaint was barred by limitation. Learned re-visional Court vide the impugned order found that the notice in question was received by the respondent on 16.9.2014. The period of 15 days for repayment of money was expired on 1.10.2014 and the period of limitation of one month for preferring the complaint commenced from 2.10.2014 and concluded on 2.11.2014, while the complaint was filed on 18.11.2014, which apparently was barred by time, hence the learned Magistrate has committed serious illegality in taking cognisance against the respondent. Accordingly, the complaint proceedings were directed to be quashed.