Order 1

Order Details: copy of Order
Pdf Text: 1 C.C. NO. 786/Misc./2024
ORDER BELOW APPLICATION VIDE EXH. 1
FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY
The present application is filed for the condonation of delay
occurred for filing the complaint for offence punishable under section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The application discloses
that, as the complainant was out of Bombay, there is delay of four days
occurred for filing the present complaint. Lastly, the complainant prayed
for condonation four days delay occurred in filing the present
complaint.
2. Application is proceeded ex-parte against respondent No. 1.
3. Heard learned advocates for the complainant. Perused the record.
Prima facie from perusal of the record it reveals that, cheques bear date
or issued on 19/12/2023 and 10/01/2024. The said cheques have been
presented within it’s validity and dishonoured returned unpaid
alongwith dishonour memos on 21/12/2023 and 12/01/2024. Demand
notice dated 19/01/2024 was posted on same day, which appears to be
served on 23/01/2024. However, present complaint has been filed on
13/03/2024. The complaint has not been filed within limitation, which
should have been filed within limitation.
4. Issuance of cheque, it’s presentation, it’s dishonour, issue of
demand notice after dishonour of cheque and service of demand notice
i.e. requirements to attract section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881, have been taken place within statutory limitation.
-- 1 of 3 --
2 C.C. NO. 786/Misc./2024
Admittedly, there is delay. In support of the contention that he was out
of Bombay for that period, complainant has not filed on record any
other evidence, which justifies his contentions.
5. Complainant is filed his affidavit in support of application at
Exh.2. Accordingly, it can be gathered that, delay for filing the
complaint is not intentional. There is nothing available on record to
disbelieve the version of the complainant. As a result, reasons for delay
shown in the application appear to be satisfactory. At this juncture, it is
necessary to take a resort to the Judgment of Hon'ble Kerala High Court
reported in the case of
''Sathya Narayanan Vs. Preethi 2016(2) DCR
679'' Wherein Hon'ble High Court observed that the provision under
section 142(v) should be liberally construed so as to give substantial
justice to the approaching party and there is no hard and fast rule as to
what constitutes sufficient cause to condone the delay. It must be
determined by the reference to the facts and circumstances of each case.
On the above grounds, delay caused in filing the complaint will have to
be condoned.
6. In view of reasons mentioned in the application, it appears that,
the delay caused for filing the complaint is not deliberate and
intentional. Further, there is no laxity on the part of applicant.
Therefore, in the interest of justice and in view of above discussion,
application deserves to be allowed. In the result, following order is
passed :
ORDER
[1] The delay caused for filing of the complaint is
condoned.
-- 2 of 3 --
3 C.C. NO. 786/Misc./2024
[2] The case be registered as per rules.
Date :26/09/2025 (G. M. Charankar),
Judicial Magistrate (First Class)
73rd Court, Vikhroli, Mumbai.
-- 3 of 3 --