Simangal Brahma v. Pallavi Rabha

Gauhati HC3 Jun 2025Crl.Pet./1377/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gauhati High Court; Crl.Pet./1377/2024; Simangal Brahma vs Pallavi Rabha; Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia; decided 04.06.2025; Section 482 read with Sections 397/401 CrPC 1973; Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act 1881; CR NI Case No.23/2022; Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Kokrajhar; condonation of delay; complaint filed beyond limitation dismissed outright; one opportunity to file condonation prayer; impugned order set aside; Pawan Kumar Ralli vs Maninder Singh Narula 2014 15SCC 245; criminal petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dismissing the Section 138 complaint set aside; Trial Court directed to give the petitioner one opportunity to file a condonation-of-delay application and dispose of it in accordance with law after hearing both sides. ¶¶27

Simangal Brahma Vs Pallavi Rabha — Cheque Dishonour | Gauhati HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kokrajhar dismissing the Section 138 NI Act complaint outright, without considering the petitioner's prayer for condonation of delay, should be set aside.

¶¶18

Ratio / Principle

Where the petitioner wishes to file a petition seeking condonation of delay, the Trial Court should allow one opportunity to that effect.

¶¶24

Key takeaways

The impugned order dismissing the complaint is set aside.ratio¶¶25
The Trial Court is directed to give the petitioner one opportunity to file a prayer for condonation of delay, hear both sides, and dispose of that application in accordance with the procedure laid down by law.ratio¶¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under Section 482 read with Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the order dated 28.07.2022 of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kokrajhar in CR NI Case No.23/2022, whereby a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, filed beyond the prescribed time limit, was dismissed in its entirety without considering the petitioner's proposed application for condonation of delay. Held: where a party seeks to move for condonation of delay, the Trial Court should allow one opportunity to that effect; the impugned order dismissing the complaint was set aside, and the Trial Court was directed to permit the petitioner to file the condonation prayer and dispose of it in accordance with law after hearing both sides. Counsel for the petitioner had relied on Pawan Kumar Ralli Vs. Maninder Singh Narula, 2014 15SCC 245 (quoted at ¶¶19-22); the quoted Supreme Court passage is reproduced herein as cited, not as this Court's holding. Petition disposed of (Parthivjyoti Saikia, J.; 04.06.2025).

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010030242023

2025:GAU-AS:7259

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : Crl.Pet./1377/2024

¶6

SIMANGAL BRAHMA S/O PREM CHAND BRAHMA R/O VILL- SOUTH BESWARGAON, P.O. RANGALIKATA, P.S. KOKRAJHAR, DIST. KOKRAJHAR,BTR, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

PALLAVI RABHA D/O T.C. RABHA R/O DPS ROAD, LALUNG GAON, BORDOLOI PATH,

¶9

NIZARA GHAT, LALOU LALUNG BYE LANE, NEAR PUTULI PRIMARY SCHOOL, P.S. GARCHUK, GUWAHATI-781034, DIST. KAMRU (METRO), ASSAM

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. DITUL DAS, MS TINLUNG

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A K AHMED, MR. R CHETRI

¶12

Page No.# 2/3

¶13

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Date : 04.06.2025

¶16

1. Heard Mr. Ditul Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Chetri, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶17

2. This is an application filed under Section 482 read with Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying for setting aside and quashing the Order dated 28.07.2022, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kokrajhar in CR NI Case No.23/2022.

¶18

3. The case of the petitioner lies within a very short campus. The petitioner filed a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The case was filed beyond the time limit set by the Act, therefore the petitioner wanted to file an application praying for condonation of delay, that prayer was not considered rather the entire complaint case was dismissed.

¶19

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Judgment of the Supreme Court that was delivered in “ Pawan Kumar Ralli Vs. Maninder Singh Narula reported in 2014 15SCC 245 ”, paragraph 10 of the said Judgment is quoted as under:

¶20

Learned Amicus finally submitted that the legislative intent in inserting the proviso to Clause (b) /of Section 142 of the Act was only to protect the Cheque holders from the defaulters who issued the Cheques and the Court should act reasonably in providing an opportunity to the Cheque holder to present his version on the issue of delay if any. After taking into consideration the reasons advanced by the

¶21

Page No.# 3/3

¶22

Cheque holder, the Court should consider the question of delay and then only it should pass an order. But in the present case, the High Court adopted an unhealthy approach by passing the impugned order quashing the criminal proceedings on the ground of limitation, that too for a delay of only 25 days, without considering the appellant's reasons for the delay. He further submitted that the observation of the High Court in the impugned order that "allowing the appellant to pursue the Complaint against the respondent would be an abuse of process" is also not in the interest of justice.

¶23

5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the sides.

¶24

6. The petitioner wanted to file the petition seeking condonation of delay, the Trial Court should allow one opportunity to that effect.

¶25

7. Therefore the impugned order dismissing the complaint is set aside.

¶26

8. The Trial Court is directed to give one opportunity to the petitioner to file a prayer seeking condonation of delay and after hearing learned counsel for both the sides, the Trial Court shall dispose of the said application in accordance with the procedure as laid down by law.

¶27

9. With the aforesaid direction, this Criminal Petition stands disposed of.

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

Comparing Assistant

Simangal Brahma v. Pallavi Rabha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Simangal Brahma v. Pallavi Rabha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hanuman Singh Vs the State of Assam

Abhishek Kar Vs the State of Assam

Smti Renu Devi Vs the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Md. Matab Uddin Vs the State of Assam

Mehbub Ali Vs Hasina Begum

Mustt. Lozzatan Begum Vs Shahidul Islam