Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 677 (RAJ)

Deepak Vaishnav v. State of Rajasthan

2018-03-05

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2018
JUDGMENT Vijay Bishnoi, J. - This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 07.11.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the revisional court') in Criminal Revision Petition No.367/2017, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. The petitioner has filed the above mentioned revision petition being aggrieved with the order dated 12.06.2017, whereby the Special Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act) Cases No.3, Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') has took cognizance against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complaint has been filed by the respondent-Ranjan Daiya under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act after a delay of six days. It is also submitted that the medical certificates submitted by the respondent-Ranjan Daiya along with the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act with a prayer for condoning the delay of six days were found forged. 4. It is contended that the courts below have not taken into consideration the said aspect of the matter and illegally took cognizance against the petitioner while condoning the delay in filing the complaint in illegal manner. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Ranjan Daiya has argued that both the courts below have taken into consideration the affidavit filed by the petitioner along with the document for condoning the delay and thereafter passed the impugned orders perfectly in accordance with law. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that respondent-Ranjan Daiya has sufficiently explained the delay of six days in filing the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. As per the proviso to Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instrument Act, where the complainant satisfies in the court that he/she had sufficient cause for not making a complaint within limitation, the Court can condone the delay. In the present case, when the complainant has sufficiently explained the delay in filing the complaint, the trial court has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order. 7. Hence, there is no force in this criminal misc. petition, the same is hereby dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed.