Final Order 1

Order Details: Order below Ex-1
Pdf Text: CNR No.MHMM19-006169-2018 1 C. C. No. 458/MISC/2018
Pramila Kawale Vs. Bajrang Shirke (delay condonation order)
ORDER BELOW EXHIBIT NO.1 IN C.C. No.458/MISC/2018
1. The present application is filed on behalf of original
complainant requesting for condonation of delay of 30 days in filing
complaint against accused for alleged offence u/s. 138 of the N.I. Act.
After the service of the notice respondent/accused failed to appear and
application proceeded ex-parte against him. Original complainant has
filed the pursis vide Exh-4 for not adducing any oral evidence. Heard
the arguments on behalf of original complainant. The Ld. Advocate for
the complainant re-iterated reasons mentioned in the application for
grant of prayer.
2. Perused contents of the application. It is the contention of
the original complainant that after sending the demand notice so as to
give chance to accused to pay the outstanding amount, she did not
proceed to file the complaint within the statutory period. Therefore,
she again sent notice to the accused on what’s app messenger to give
him a chance, but no reply was given by the accused and thereafter she
immediately filed the application along with the complaint. However,
she has not given the details when such messages were sent to the
accused on what’s app messenger. So also no supporting documents are
filed to show that such messages were given to the accused. The xerox
copy filed along with application pertaining to message sent over the
mobile shows that by the said message only intimation was given that
...2/-
-- 1 of 2 --
CNR No.MHMM19-006169-2018 2 C. C. No. 458/MISC/2018
Pramila Kawale Vs. Bajrang Shirke (delay condonation order)
demand notice was not served due to change of address. Therefore, the
delay as mentioned in the application is not properly explained by the
original complainant and the reasons mentioned are not genuine to
consider the prayer. There are satisfactory ground to rely on the
contents mentioned in the application. Under such circumstances the
reasons mentioned in the application are not trustworthy. Therefore,
the application is liable to be rejected. Hence, following order.
O R D E R
The application for condonation of delay for filing the
complaint is hereby rejected.
Date : 10-02-2020
*csj
(H. V. Kulkarni)
Metropolitan Magistrate
48th Court, Andheri, Mumbai
-- 2 of 2 --