Allowed

M/S.Saran Shipping Line v. Anitha@ Anitha Moses

Madras HC19 Apr 2023CRL RC/359/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a cheque bounce case, the High Court revived a condonation of delay petition dismissed by the trial magistrate. The Court held that a bona fide belief that the accused would pay the dues preclusively prevented filing the complaint under Section 138 NI Act constitutes a justifiable ground for condoning delay.

What did the court decide?

Directed the trial court to allow the petition to condone the 27-day delay and take the complaint on file to proceed with the trial.

M/S.Saran Shipping Line Vs Anitha@ Anitha Moses — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.R.C.No.359 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 19.04.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

Crl.R.C.No.359 of 2020

¶7

M/s.Saran Shipping Line Rajagopalan (Partner), R8, 2^nd Floor, Barathi Sarasuram Enclave, Kumaranandhapuram 7^th Street, Tirupur – 641 608. .... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

Anitha @ Anitha Moses Proprietor, M/s.A.S.Fashion, 18, AVP Layout, 5^th Street, Padmavathy Puram, Gandhi Nagar, Tirupur – 641 603 (within the police limit of Tirupur North Police Station) .... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER : Criminal Revision Case has been filed under sections 397 read with 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records of the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.3411 of 2019 dated 04.12.2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur and set aside the same and direct

¶11

1/6

¶12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶13

Crl.R.C.No.359 of 2020

¶14

the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur to take on file the unnumbered C.C.No... of 2019 filed by the petitioner to be decided on merits.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.V.M.Venkataramana For Respondent : No appearance

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This Revision Petition is filed by the complainant being

¶18

aggrieved by the dismissal order of the Judicial Magistrate in condoning the delay of 27 days in preferring the complaint.

¶19

No representation for the respondent inspite of service

¶20

and entering appearance by the counsel by name called Mr.K.S.Kaviarasu and Mr.K.Vignesh Karthick.

¶21

The facts of the case is that a cheque dated 10.12.2018 for a sum of Rs.3,34,684/- was issued by the accused/Anitha @ Anitha Moses to discharge the liability arose in the course of yarn business between the complainant and the accused. The said cheque, on

¶22

2/6

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

Crl.R.C.No.359 of 2020

¶25

presentation was bounced back with memo dated 28.12.2018 stating that "funds insufficient". The complainant has caused statutory notice intimating about the dishonour of the cheque. Thereafter, the complainant caused statutory notice on 26.01.2019. The notice caused was not claimed by the accused and the same was returned on 29.01.2019. However, the complainant has not preferred any complaint immediately after the cause of action arose and within the limitation prescribed. He has presented the complaint only on 20.06.2019 along with the application to condone the delay of 27 days. In the application, the complainant has stated that before causing the statutory notice dated 26.01.2019, the accused made a request vide letter dated 05.01.2019 requesting not to present the cheque and he will pay the money to sustain the business relationship and believing the words of the accused, complaint was not filed, expecting the accused to pay the cheque amount. After realising that he is not ready to pay the amount, complaint has been lodged with a delay. The delay being a reasonable one and sufficiently explained and the same has to be condoned. However, the Trial Court

¶26

3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

Crl.R.C.No.359 of 2020

¶28

dismissed the petition to condone the delay by observing that "waiting payment from the accused at the request of the accused without approaching the Court in time by not abiding the statutory command employed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is not the ground to dismiss the condone delay petition”.

¶29

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/complainant submitted that in the condone delay petition sufficient cause has been stated and the request made by the accused through her letter dated 05.01.2019, made the complainant to wait till the expiry of the limitation period.

¶30

The bonofide belief of the complainant that the accused will settle the dues without resorting to the legal remedy, cannot be taken advantage by the accused. This Court finds force in the said submission.

¶31

4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

Crl.R.C.No.359 of 2020

¶33

Hence, this Revision Petition is allowed. The Trial Court is

¶34

directed to allow the petition to condone the delay of 27 days in preferring the complaint in exercise of its power under Proviso of Section 142(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. The Trial Court shall take the complaint on file, cause notice to the accused and proceed in accordance with law.

¶35

19.04.2023

¶36

Internet : Yes/No Index: Yes/No

¶37

Lpp

¶38

¶39

The Additional Principal Family Judge, Coimbatore.

¶40

5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

Crl.R.C.No.359 of 2020

¶42

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

¶43

Lpp

¶44

Crl.R.C.No.359 of 2020

¶45

19.04.2023

¶46

6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M/S.Saran Shipping Line v. Anitha@ Anitha Moses

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Saran Shipping Line v. Anitha@ Anitha Moses

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramachandran Vs State Rep.by

K.Mohanraj Vs State Rep.by

K.Sivashanmugam Vs State Rep. by

Munusamy Vs the Inspector of Police

Badri Narayanan Vs M/S.Meghraj International

Mohammed Danish @ Mo.Danish Vs State Rep.by