Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 367 (ORI)

Pragati Ventura Pvt. Ltd. v. Jasmine Road Lines

2014-06-19

I.MAHANTY

body2014
JUDGMENT INDRAJIT MAHANTY, J. 1. The present application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed by the petitioner-M/s. Pragati Ventura Pvt. Ltd. seeking to challenge an order of cognizance dated 29.01.2008 passed by the learned S.D.J.M. (S) Cuttack in I.C.C. Case No. 64 of 2008. 2. Shorn of unnecessary detail it would suffice to note herein that opposite party M/s. Jasmine Road Lines received payment of Rs.26,10,000/- towards its dues relating to supply of iron ore fines by way of cheque dated 03.12.2007 drawn on Axis Bank Ltd. The said cheque was duly deposited in the bank for clearance and when the same was dishonoured, a notice under Section 138 of N.I. Act was issued to the petitioner on 27.12.2007 demanding the cheque amount from the petitioner to be paid within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. 3. The petitioner’s claim is that it received notice on 02.01.2008 but without waiting for the expiry of the 15 days period as mandated, the complainant-opposite party filed the aforesaid complaint case on 14.01.2008. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the statutory period of 15 days notice is mandatory and only on the failure of the petitioner to make payment within 15 days thereafter, would give rise to cause of action for filing of the complaint. The present complaint having been filed before the 15 days period lapsed, the order of cognizance ought to be quashed. 4. The aforesaid contention of the petitioner is wholly felicitous. Even though the complainant-opposite party issued notice under Section 138 N.I. Act on 27.12.2007 and the petitioner claims to have received the same on 02.01.2008 and even though the complaint case was filed prior to the expiry of 15 days therefrom and filed on 14.01.2008, from the impugned order-sheet it clearly appears that the order of cognizance was passed by the learned S.D.J.M. (S) Cuttack on 29.01.2008 clearly beyond the 15 days offered to the petitioner. If the petitioner possessed any bona fide, he could have made payment within the period statutorily prescribed and sought for quashing of the proceeding. If the petitioner possessed any bona fide, he could have made payment within the period statutorily prescribed and sought for quashing of the proceeding. The petitioner cannot be permitted to take advantage of such situation, since it is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Narsingh Das Tapadia vs. Goverdhan Das Patani, AIR 2000 SC 2946 that even in a case where a complaint is filed prior to expiry of 15 days of notice, the same cannot be said to be incompetent since the bar of expiry of 15 days is only for the purpose of taking cognizance and not for filing of the complaint and, therefore, even if a complaint is field before expiry of the 15 days period, if the order of cognizance has been taken after the expiry of 15 days period as in the present case, the order of cognizance cannot be allowed to be challenged on such ground. 5. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition and the same stands dismissed. The interim order stands vacated. The Registry is directed to immediately intimate the trial Court to proceed with the matter expeditiously.