Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1900 (RAJ)

Gulabram v. Himmat Ram

2017-08-25

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2017
JUDGMENT : PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. 1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 21.02.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Bali, District Pali in Criminal Original Case No. 356/2014, whereby the learned court below rejected the application filed by the petitioner on 06.12.2016 and also for quashing the proceeding of the criminal case itself. 2. A complaint was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner in respect of dishonour of the cheque of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The cognizance was taken on 24.06.2014 and the statement of the complainant was consequently recorded. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from a bare perusal of the cheque return memo, it is clear that the cheque was in respect of an amount of Rs. 653/-, whereas the cheque is alleged to have the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner also stated that the bills return memo was not carrying the date, and thus, computation of the limitation in accordance with the Negotiable Instruments Act will be impossible. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that notice registered A.D. acknowledgment, which had an endorsement of refusal to accept the notice, had an overwriting in the date, and thus, overall, the matter is faced with impossibility, as far as compliance of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, particularly pertaining to the limitation, is concerned. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent however, states that the complaint was preferred much earlier and the cognizance was taken on 24.06.2014, and hence, the trial has commenced and has progressed substantially and no indulgence ought to be granted to the petitioner at this stage. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order of the learned court below is well justified and sufficient reasons have been mentioned therein, where the court has assumed that the dates, on which the alleged events have taken place, are well within time. However, it is also true that once the cognizance was taken on 24.06.2014, then any interference in the proceedings, at this belated stage, is not called for. 6. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the present misc. petition is dismissed. However, the dismissal of the present misc. However, it is also true that once the cognizance was taken on 24.06.2014, then any interference in the proceedings, at this belated stage, is not called for. 6. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the present misc. petition is dismissed. However, the dismissal of the present misc. petition shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner on merits. Petition dismissed.