Disposed¶25

Sharan Srivastava Alias Raju Srivastava v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC10 Jun 2026Acq. App.(C)/3/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: acquittal appeal; disposal as withdrawn; liberty to invoke proviso to Section 142(b) N.I. Act; Section 138 cheque dishonour; premature complaint; fresh complaint; condonation of delay; Yogendra Pratap Singh (2014) 10 SCC 713 relied on; Sessions Judge East Singhbhum acquittal 19.12.2019; Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 2019; JMFC Jamshedpur conviction 30.03.2019; C/1 Case No. 1993 of 2017; T.R. No. 38 of 2019; compensation Rs. 5,72,000/-; Jamshedpur; Jharkhand High Court Ranchi.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of as withdrawn, with liberty to the appellant to invoke the proviso of Section 142(b) of the N.I. Act before the Court below, if the facts and circumstances of the case so permit. ¶25

Sharan Srivastava Alias Raju Srivastava Vs the State of… — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

2026:JHHC:16613

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acquittal Appeal (C) No. 03 of 2022

¶3

Sharan Srivastava @ Raju Srivastava, aged about 42 years, son of Late Surjadeo Srivastava, resident of Holding No. 14, Baleshwar Singh Path, Dimna Road, Mango, Town Jamshedpur, P.O.+P.S.- Mango, District- East Singhbhum …....... Appellant(s) Vrs.

¶4

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶5

2.Anupma Sudha Toppo, wife of Samsung Aind, resident of Ram Nagar, Road No. 4, Holding No. 11, Sonari, Town Jamshedpur, P.O. + P.S.- Kadma, District- East Singhbhum ........ Respondent(s)

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Shweta Singh, A.P.P. For the Resp. No.2 : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate Ms. K. Pragati R. Narayan, Advocate

¶7

10.06.2026 Heard learned counsel the appellant, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.

¶8

2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of acquittal dated 19.12.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 2019 whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur has acquitted the respondent no.2 by allowing the appeal and set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 30.03.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Jamshedpur in connection with C/1 Case No. 1993 of 2017 corresponding to T.R. No. 38 of 2019 whereby the Respondent No.2 has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for One month and also directed to pay Rs. 5,72,000/- by way of compensation to the complainant.

¶9

3 . Learned counsel for the appellant at the very outset has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Yogendra Pratap Singh Vrs. Savitri Pandey & Anr. reported in (2014) 10 SCC 713 wherein the Apex Court has formulated two

¶10

Acq. Appeal (C) No. 03 of 2022

¶11

¶12

2026:JHHC:16613

¶13

questions, which read as under:

¶14

i. Can cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 be taken on the basis of a complaint filed before the expiry of the period of 15 days stipulated in the notice required to be served upon the drawer of the cheque in terms of Section 138(c) of the Act aforementioned? And,

¶15

ii. If answer to question no.1 is in the negative, can the complainant be permitted to present the complaint again notwithstanding the fact that the period of one month stipulated under Section 142(b) for the filing of such a complaint has expired?

¶16

The said questions have been answered in para 41 of the judgment,

¶17

which reads as under:

¶18

41. Section 142 of the NI Act prescribes the mode and so also the time within which a complaint for an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act can be filed. A complaint made under Section 138 by the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque has to be in writing and needs to be made within one month from the date on which the cause of action has arisen under clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138. The period of one month under Section 142(b) begins from the date on which the cause of action has arisen under clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138. However, if the complainant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making a complaint within the prescribed period of one month, a complaint may be taken by the Court after the prescribed period. Now, since our answer to question (i) is in the negative, we observe that the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque may file a fresh complaint within one month from the date of decision in the criminal case and, in that event, delay in filing the complaint will be treated as having been condoned under the proviso to clause (b) of Section 142 of the NI Act. This direction shall be deemed to be applicable to all such pending cases where the complaint does not proceed further in view of our answer to question (i). As we have already held that a complaint filed before the expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice issued under clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138 is not maintainable, the complainant cannot be permitted to present the very same complaint at any later stage. His remedy is only to file a fresh complaint; and if the same could not be filed within the time prescribed under Section 142(b), his recourse is to seek the benefit

¶19

Acq. Appeal (C) No. 03 of 2022

¶20

¶21

2026:JHHC:16613

¶22

of the proviso. satisfying the Court of sufficient cause. Question (ii) is answered accordingly.

¶23

Referring to the above proviso, it has been submitted that the appellant may be permitted to withdraw the present acquittal appeal with a liberty to approach the Court below under proviso of Section 142(b) of the N.I. Act.

¶24

Considering the legal provision and the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Yogendra Pratap Singh (supra), the present acquittal appeal is disposed of as withdrawn with a liberty to the appellant to invoke the proviso of Section 142(b) of the N.I. Act, if the facts and circumstances of the case so permit.

¶25

The present acquittal appeal stands disposed of.

¶26

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶27

Dated 10^th June 2026 A. Mohanty Jharkhand High Court Uploaded

¶28

//2026

¶29

Acq. Appeal (C) No. 03 of 2022

¶30

Sharan Srivastava Alias Raju Srivastava v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharan Srivastava Alias Raju Srivastava v. the State of Jharkhand

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

Arvind Kumar Choudhary Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sagra Bibi @ Sogra Bibi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Raman Prasad Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mukesh Sah Vs State of Jharkhand

Kali Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Raju Kundu Vs the State of Jharkhand