JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings and prosecution as well as the order dated 21.12.2015 passed in C.P. Case No.2797 of 2015 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner despite there being a delay in filing the complaint, involving the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, without giving any notice to the petitioner and without recording any express satisfaction in the impugned order taking cognizance dated 21.12.2015, about condoning of the delay in filing the complaint. 3. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner as an additional ground, that the petitioner is no more the Director of the Company, for the dishonour of the cheque issued by which company, this complaint has been filed and he was never the Managing Director and Chairman of the said Company; but keeping in view the description of the petitioner in the complaint that he is Managing Director and Chairman of the said company and in view of the principle of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pawan Kumar Goel vs. State of U.P. & Another, 2023 (2) East Cr. C 55 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated that merely being a Director of a company is not sufficient to make the person liable under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and to make out a Director liable for prosecution, there has to be specific averments that a Director was In-charge of and responsible to the company for conduct of its business, but in case of Managing Director and Joint Managing Director they being admittedly In-charge of the company and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business, no such specific averments is required. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the said ground and confines to the only ground that the petitioner has neither been issued any notice nor has he been given any opportunity of being heard, even though the complaint was filed after a delay and the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad has not passed any express order condoning the delay in filing the said complaint. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. 5. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition but fairly submit that notice was not issued to the petitioner, who was the accused person of the case before condoning of the delay. 6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of P.K. Choudhury vs. Commander, 48 BRTF (GREF), AIR 2008 SC 1937 wherein, in a case relating to the offences punishable under Section 166 and 167 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , when a complaint petition was filed belatedly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that the delay in launching the prosecution could not have been condoned without notices to the accused person of the case and in such a case, the accused person was entitled to get an opportunity of being heard before the delay could be condoned. In the case of Yogendra Pratap Singh vs. Savitri Pandey & Another, (2014) 10 SCC 713 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that the remedy to the complainant is only to file a fresh complaint and if the same could not be filed within the time prescribed under Section 142 (b) of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the recourse of the complainant is to seek the benefit of the proviso satisfying the Court of sufficient cause. 7. In view of the settled principle of law, the corollary is that the accused person does not come into picture at all till the process is issued but this position of law is true when there is no delay in launching the prosecution. 7. In view of the settled principle of law, the corollary is that the accused person does not come into picture at all till the process is issued but this position of law is true when there is no delay in launching the prosecution. But in case of delay in launching the prosecution, certainly accused person of the case is entitled to get an opportunity of being heard before the delay could be condoned. 8. In view of para-5 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Sharadchandra Vinayak Dongre & Others reported in (1995) 1 SCC 42 , since the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad has neither given any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, who is the accused persons of the case, before condoning the delay nor any express order regarding condoning the delay has been passed by the trial court, this is a fit case where the impugned order dated 21.12.2015 passed in C.P. Case No.2797 of 2015 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad is liable to be quashed and set aside and the matter be remitted back to the court concerned to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21.12.2015 passed in C.P. Case No.2797 of 2015 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad is quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court concerned to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Both the petitioner and the opposite party No.2 are directed to appear before the learned trial court on or before 15.11.2025 for taking instruction regarding further proceedings of the case. 10. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent only. 11. In view of disposal of the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, the interim relief granted earlier vide order dated 14.12.2017 is vacated. 12. The Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith.