High Court of Kerala dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging an order rejecting a condonation petition for inordinate delay in filing a cheque bounce case.
Criminal revision petition dismissed; impugned order upholding rejection of condonation petition allowed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 5TH ASHADHA, 1945
CRL.REV.PET NO. 182 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 15/2014 OF SPECIAL COURT OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR TRIAL OF CASES U/S.138 NI
ACT(JMFC XI)
REVISION PETITIONER/S/PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:
P SANTHOSH KUMAR
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O PARAMESWARAN (LATE), TC 962/2, KUTHIRAVILAKOM LANE,
KARAMANA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695002
BY ADV SHABU SREEDHARAN
RESPONDENT/S/RESPONDENTS AND STATE/ACCUSED AND STATE:
1 MANOJ KUMARAGED 43 YEARS, S/O BHASKARA VARMA, PARIMALA NIVAS,
AKATHETHARA P.O, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678008
2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 26.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
CRL.REV.PET NO. 182 OF 2023
O R D E R Dated this the 26th day of June, 2023
The petitioner is the complainant in S.T.No.15 of 2014
of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – XII (Special Court for Trial of Cases under Section 138 of the N.I.Act) Thiruvananthapuram. The case originated from a complaint filed by the petitioner against the first respondent, alleging commission of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint was filed along with a petition for condoning the delay of 1183 days. By the impugned Annexure 3 order, the learned Magistrate dismissed the delay condonation petition.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 182 OF 2023
3
unknown, the Counsel failed to take steps for filing the complaint before the proper court. It is submitted that the cheque amount being Rs.1,00,000/-, a lenient view may be
taken and the petitioner permitted to prosecute the complaint on merits.
In spite of the persuasive submissions of the learned Counsel, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. As rightly found by the learned Magistrate, the explanation offered is not sufficient to condone the inordinate delay of 1183 days.
In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
V.G.ARUN JUDGE
RK
4
CRL.REV.PET NO. 182 OF 2023
APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 182/2023
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure-1THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT WITH CMP
NO. 8612/2012 FILED BEFORE THE JFCM
COURT-I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED
26.09.2012
Annexure-2THE TRUE COPY OF THE CMP NO. 7470/2017
IN ST 15/2014 DATED 27.12.2017 BEFORE
THE TEMPORARY SPECIAL COURT OF THE
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS
FOR THE TRIAL OF CASES U/S 138 OF THE
NI ACT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Annexure3THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE
TEMPORARY SPECIAL COURT OF THE JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS FOR THE
TRIAL OF CASES U/S 138 OF THE NI ACT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN CMP NO. 7470/2017
IN ST 15/2014 DATED 9.12.2022
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the explanation offered for the inordinate delay in filing the complaint under Section 138 NI Act sufficient to condone the same.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P. Santhosh Kumar
Manoj Kumar
State of Kerala
V.G. Arun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court