11 TOP MOST IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS ON PREMATURE COMPLAINT UNDER NI ACT
(Haryana Judiciary 2018 )
#DDA || District Attorney 2018 Exam Special
Bhoorey
Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.2017 ALL MR (Cri) JOURNAL 654
Negotiable
Instruments Act (1881), S.138(c) - Dishonour of cheque - Premature complaint -
As per provision of S.138(c), complaint has to be filed after 15 days of
service of notice - Counting of 15 days is to be made from next day from
service of notice - Therefore, complaint filed on 15th day, is a premature
complaint - Hence, liable to be dismissed.
Yogendra
Pratap Singh Vs. Savitri Pandey & Anr.2014 ALL MR (Cri) 4137 (S.C.)
Negotiable
Instruments Act (1881), Ss.138(c), 142 - Criminal P.C. (1973), Ss.2(d), 190 -
Premature complaint - Complaint filed before expiry of 15 days as mentioned in
S.138(c) - Is no complaint in eyes of law - No cognizance can be taken of such
complaint even if period of 15 days completed on date of cognizance.
Negotiable
Instruments Act (1881), Ss.138(c), 142(b) - Premature complaint - Requirement
to file a fresh complaint as the very same complaint cannot be entertained at
later stage - If fresh complaint could not be filed within one month period as
mentioned in S.142(b), complainant can seek condonation of delay satisfying the
court of sufficient cause.
Lakhan
Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.2014 ALL MR (Cri) JOURNAL 157 )
(A)
Negotiable Instruments Act (1881), Ss.142(b), 138(c) - Premature complaint - In
view of Apex Court's judgment in 2001 ALL MR (Cri) 561 (S.C.), even if
complaint is premature still it can await maturity - Or it can be returned to
complainant for filing it later - However, same does not mean that Magistrate
is dutybound to return a premature complaint - Any failure on the part of
Magistrate in that regard - Cannot be made use of advantage by complainant.
2001(1) ALL MR 525 (S.C.) : 2001 ALL MR (Cri) 561 (S.C.) Rel. on.
Chouradiya
Trading Co. Vs. Sushil Kumar2009 ALL MR (Cri) JOURNAL 337
Negotiable
Instruments Act (1881), Ss.138, 142 - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Filed
before expiry of fifteen days period but cognizance taken by Court much later
on affording opportunity to accused to make payment - Complaint cannot be said
to be premature. 2008(1) SCC 703 - Rel. on. (Paras Hemant Sharma Vs. Kishorilal
Vanshkar2009 ALL MR (Cri) JOURNAL 315
Negotiable
Instruments Act (1881), S.138 - Dishonour of cheque - Premature complaint -
Magistrate ought to wait for expiry of 15 days and then take cognizance of
complaint. 2003 DCR 252 - Foll.
Smt.
Patchiammal Vs. K. C. Sriramalu & Ors.2009(2) ALL MR (JOURNAL) 22
Negotiable
Instruments Act (1881) Ss.138, 142 - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Whether
premature - Complaint filed before expiry of statutory period - Court simply
signing the printed form of order sheet on 29-5-2000, which contained words
"cognizance" taken, statement by 18-11-2000" without applying
its mind - Case further adjourned and on 14-2-2001 cognizance was taken after considering
sworn statement of complainant - Complaint cannot be considered as premature
warranting acquittal of accused.
Anil Kumar Shukla Vs. State Of U.P.2008 ALL MR
(Cri) JOURNAL 186
(B)
Negotiable Instruments Act (1881) Ss.138, 142 - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint
- Cause of action accrues after expiry of 15 days from date of service of
demand notice - Complaint filed before expiry of 15 days would be premature -
Cognizance taken thereon would be liable to be quashed.
G.
N. Raju Vs.B. S. Jaiprakash & Anr.2006 ALL MR (Cri) JOURNAL 269
Negotiable
Instruments Act (1881) S.138 - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Taking
cognizance of - Premature presentation of complaint - Mere presentation of
complaint does not mean taking of cognizance - Taking cognizance would mean
applying judicious mind to facts of case pertaining to offence - 15 days period
expired on 7-1-97 - Complaint was launched on 6-1-97 - Court did not apply its
mind no 6-1-97 - It took notice on 5-4-97 by stating that complainant was
present and cognizance taken - Held since cognizance was taken on 5-4-97 complaint
was not premature.
V.
S. Shivadas Vs. Ramanath Shetty & Anr. 2006 ALL MR (Cri) JOURNAL 208
Negotiable
Instruments Act (1881) S.138 - Dishonour of cheque - Premature complaint -
Complaint should be kept waiting until ripening of the cause of action or it
should be returned with advice to complainant to file it after completion of
necessary statutory waiting period - Dismissal of complaint is bad in law. 2001
ALL MR (Cri) 561 (S.C.) - Rel. on. (Para
Narsingh
Das Tapadia Vs. Goverdhan Das Partani & Anr.2001(1) ALL MR 525 (S.C.)
Negotiable Instruments Act (1881) S.138
proviso, Clause (c), 142(b) - Non-compliance with clause (c) of proviso to
S.138 - Complaint filed before expiry of 15 days - Complaint need not be
dismissed as premature - Court may postpone taking cognizance till the arising
of cause of action or till the cause of action has matured - Taking cognizance
of an offence is distinct from filing of complaint by complainant. Criminal
P.C.(1973), S.190.
M/S.
Harpreet Hosiery Rehari. Vs. Nitu Mahajan.2001 ALL MR (Cri) JOURNAL 7
Negotiable
Instruments Act (1881) S.138 - Complaint - Complaint filed on 14th day of
notice is premature.
Bhanwar
Lal Vs. State Of Rajasthan1999 ALL MR (Cri) JOURNAL 20
(B)
Negotiable Instruments Act (1881) S.138 - Notice with regard to dishonour of
the cheque received by the drawer on 31-5-1995 - Complaint filed before
Magistrate on 9-6-1995 before the expiry of 15 days - Complaint cannot be
quashed as being premature when the Court took cognizance only after 15-6-1995
and examined the complainant on 7-9-1995.
No comments:
Post a Comment