Downloaded
Downloaded
21598 of 2019
DATED : 23.06.2022
CORAM
Crl.O.P.No.21598 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.No.11185 of 2019
Vs.
ORDER
This original petition is filed to set aside the order passed by the
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.21598 of 2019
3. The short point involved in this case is that the cheque dated
19.03.2013 for Rs.5 lakhs alleged to have been issued by this petitioner and
the same was returned on 22.03.2013 for insufficiency of the fund and on
receipt of the memo from the Bank, the respondent has caused statutory
notice dated 30.05.2013 to the petitioner. The statutory notice has been
02.07.2019 which is within the time prescribed under the statute. However,
the complaint being filed with defects, it was returned twice. The last return
with a delay of 1,248 days, along with an application to condone the delay,
stating that his father was hospitalised for chronic illness and died on
12.04.2014 and therefore, till that date he was attending his ailing father and
2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.21598 of 2019
allowed the petition solely on the ground that the petitioner has given a
Further, it observed that the trial Court has returned the complaint nothing
the defect, but has not specified time limit for its representation. Therefore,
3/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.21598 of 2019
issued to discharge the loan amount but bounced. Under 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act, the Specific time limit is prescribed for filing complaint
and there is also provision to condone delay in filing the petition. However,
the complainant cannot take advantage of the fact that there is no time limit
prescribed for representation of the returned complaint and can represent the
complaint with a delay of 1248 days, which is inordinate and also not
4/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.21598 of 2019
right of the accused to put forth his defence effectively will be taken away.
Even looking from another angle, the cheque is alleged to have been given to
discharge a debt. For recovery of money, the time limit to prefer suit is three
years from the date of cause of action / money payable. Here is a case where
the cheque dated 19.03.2013 sought to be realised but could not fructify due
to want of fund.
1248 days cannot be condoned. The interest of justice has to be taken note
off while subjecting a person for a criminal trial. Under Section 138 of
imprisonment or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of cheque.
5/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.21598 of 2019
it was not taken cognizance since the complaint was defective. If the delay
is condoned and the cognizance taken after 1248 days, it will amount to
enforce a debt crystallised more than three years ago. Even from that angle,
the order of the trial Court fails to satisfy the legal requirement.
8. For the said reason, this Court finds force in the submission of
the learned counsel for the petitioner. The order of the trial Court in
23.06.2022
AT
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes/No
Speaking / Non-speaking
To
6/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.21598 of 2019
7/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.21598 of 2019
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
AT
23.06.2022
8/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis