Madras High Court
R.Jayarani vs Nagarajan on 30 July, 2019
Author: N. Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N. Anand Venkatesh
Crl.O.P.No.21416 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.07.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
Crl.O.P.No.21416 of 2017
and Crl.M.P.No.12605 of 2017
R.Jayarani
... Petitioner
Vs.
Nagarajan
... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the records and set aside the order passed by the
Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.I, (Magesterial Level), Erode, in
C.M.P.No.2762 of 2017, dated 18.05.2017, wherein the learned Judicial
Magistrate had condoned the delay of 31 days in preferring the complaint under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and confirmed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Erode, in
Criminal Revision Petition No.34 of 2017, dated 30.08.2017 and allow this
petition.
For Petitioner : M/s.S.Rajeni Ramadass
For Respondent : M/s.I.C.Vasudevan
1/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.No.21416 of 2017
ORDER
This petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Court below in confirming the order passed by the trial Court in condoning the delay of 31 days in filing the complaint for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The petitioner has been shown as an accused in the complaint filed before the Court below for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint was filed with a delay of 31 days and therefore, the petitioner filed a petition to condone the delay.
3. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.I, (Magesterial Level), Erode, by an order dated 18.05.2017, condoned the delay after finding that the respondent has given sufficient cause for the delay.
4. This was challenged by way of filing the revision before the Court below and the Court below confirmed the order passed by the trial Court and aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed before this Court.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent 2/6 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.21416 of 2017 has not shown sufficient cause for the delay. The learned counsel submitted that even though the respondent claims to have suffered from Jaundice, there were absolutely no material to prove the same. The learned counsel further submitted that during the relevant point of time, the respondent has also given a complaint and therefore the very ground taken for condoning the delay in filing the complaint is false. This fact has not been taken note of by the trial Court.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the revision Court had dismissed the petition on the ground that the accused cannot maintain a revision and he does not have locus standi to challenge the order passed by the trial Court, in condoning the delay in filing the complaint.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Court below has applied its mind and has condoned the delay and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. The learned counsel further submitted that the other grounds raised by the accused/petitioner are not relevant for the purpose of considering the condone delay petition.
8. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either 3/6 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.21416 of 2017 side and perused the materials available on record.
9. It is true that the revision Court was wrong in finding that the petitioner does not have locus standi to challenge the order passed by the trial Court. The said finding of the revision Court is unsustainable.
10. The delay involved in this case is 31 days in filing the complaint. The delay is not enormous and the trial Court has applied its mind, while passing the order. This Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court. The petitioner has to necessarily face the proceedings on merits and the proceedings cannot be stalled at the stage of condoning the delay in filing the complaint.
11. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Court below and there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court.
12. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the Court below has already taken cognizance of the complaint and the case is now at the stage of 4/6 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.21416 of 2017 trial.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court to dispense with the appearance of the petitioner before the Court below. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the presence of the petitioner is dispensed with and she shall be represented by a counsel, who shall cross examine the witnesses on the same day, they are examined in Chief. The petitioner shall be present before the Court below at the time of questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C and at the time of passing of the final judgment.
14. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed and the Court below is directed to complete the proceedings in S.T.C.No.185 of 2017, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.I, (Magesterial Level), Erode, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
30.07.2019 Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes/No ub 5/6 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.21416 of 2017 N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
ub To
1.The Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.I, (Magesterial Level), Erode.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.21416 of 2019
30.07.2019 (1/2) 6/6 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.21416 of 2017 7/6 http://www.judis.nic.in