A criminal revision challenged dismissal of a condone delay petition for a cheque dishonour complaint delayed 49 days. The High Court found the trial court had given ample opportunity to pay process fee and appear; the complainant's continued default justified dismissal. Revision dismissed.
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.
Crl.R.C.No.289 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.07.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
Crl.R.C.No.289 of 2022
P.Nathikarani
... Petitioner
Vs.
M.Selvaraj
... Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the order dated 27.02.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mettur in Crl.M.P.No.1236 of 2018.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Dilli Kumar For Respondents : No appearance
O R D E R
The criminal revision case is filed against the impugned order
dated 27.02.2019 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1236 of 2018 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mettur.
Page 1 of 6
Crl.R.C.No.289 of 2022
complainant and he filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as against the respondent for dis-honour of cheque which was returned with an endorsement "funds insufficient". However, in filing
as per Section 142 (1) (b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the cognizance of the case may be taken by the Court after the prescribed period if the complainant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making a case within such period. Hence, the trial Court have the power to condone the delay, however, mere non-appearance and non-payment of process fee,
_________ Page 2 of 6
Crl.R.C.No.289 of 2022
the trial Court mechanically dismissed the condone delay petition, which is unsustainable.
cause list, none a ppeared on behalf of him. Considering the pendency of this revision, this Court is inclined to dispose of this revision based on the materials available on record.
5. It appears that the petitioner has initially filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act as against the respondent before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mettur for dishonour of cheque and the case was filed, meanwhile delay has been occurred to represent the case, for which, the petitioner has filed a condone delay petition in Crl.M.P.No.1236 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mettur and the trial Court dismissed the petition on the ground of non-appearance and non-payment of process fee. O n a careful perusal of the order of the trial Court, it is crystal clear that the trial Court has taken several precautionary steps before passing
_________ Page 3 of 6
Crl.R.C.No.289 of 2022
the order dismissing the petition. In fact, the trial Court, on 30.11.2018 has issued direction to the petitioner to pay process fee on or before 27.02.2019. Even though the trial Court has passed a conditional order, the petitioner has not come forward to pay the process fee. Here is a case, even though, the case is pending before the trial Court from 2018, the petitioner / complainant has not chosen to appear before the trial Court and also has not paid the process fee and therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition. The attitude of the petitioner shows that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing the matter further and it should be nipped in bud and hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the reasoned order of the trial Court dated 27.02.2019 made in C.M.P.No.1236 of 2018.
09.07.2024
NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No vji To
_________ Page 4 of 6
Crl.R.C.No.289 of 2022
The learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Mettur.
_________ Page 5 of 6
Crl.R.C.No.289 of 2022
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
vji
Crl.R.C.No.289 of 2022
09.07.2024
_________ Page 6 of 6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the condone delay petition for non-appearance and non-payment of process fee despite the petitioner's delay of 49 days in representing a Section 138 NI Act
3 provisions across 2 enactments
P.Nathikarani
M.Selvaraj
M.Dhandapani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
