Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2022) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 17129 = 2022(2) 437
(@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3987 of 2020)
Decided on: 06.01.2022
For Appellant(s):
Mr. Kuljeet Rawal, Adv. Mr. Deepak Agrawal, AOR
For Respondent(s):
Mr. Aman Vachher, Adv. Mr. Dhiraj, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Arun Nagar, Adv. M/S. Vachher And Agrud, AOR
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Return of complaint – Delay in refiling -- Patiala House Court returned the original complaint to present it before the appropriate Court having jurisdiction, i. e. Saket Court on 25.08.2014, the physical copy of which was received by the complainant on 13.10.2015 and complaint was refiled with the Saket Court on 4.11.2015 – Saket Court not accepted the complaint on the ground that it was not filed within 30 days as per direction – High Court affirmed the same – If view accepted, without deciding the complaint on merits the accused would be acquitted and the complainant would be without any remedy – Orders passed by Saket Court and High Court set aside -- Saket Court directed to accept the refiled complaint and decide same in accordance with law and on its own merits.
(Para 2-5)
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 06.01.2020 passed by the High Court of Delhi Crl. LP No.223 of 2016, by which the High Court has dismissed the said revision application and has confirmed the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (South East), District Saket not accepting the refiled complaint filed by the complainant filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the original complainant has preferred the present appeal.
3. We have heard Shri Kuljeet Rawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Shri Dhiraj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. Considering the fact that the original Court – Patiala House Court passed an order returning the original complaint to present it before the appropriate Court having jurisdiction, i. e. Saket Court on 25.08.2014, the physical copy of which was received by the complainant on 13.10.2015 and thereafter the complaint was refiled with the Saket Court on 4.11.2015, it can be said that the complaint was refiled before the appropriate Court having jurisdiction – Saket Court within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the physical copy of the order, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Court ought to have taken on record the refiled complaint and ought to have proceeded further with the complaint to decide it in accordance with law and on merits. The High Court has erred in confirming the order passed by the learned Metropoliton Magistrate, Saket Court in not accepting the refiled complaint on the ground that it was refiled beyond the period of the 30 days.
4. It is also required to be noted that in case the view taken by the High Court is accepted in that case without deciding the complaint on merits the accused would be acquitted and the complainant would be without any remedy as the complaint filed by him will not be considered and or decided either by the Patiala House Court or by the Saket Court. The complaint filed by the complainant was required to be adjudicated upon and/or considered by at least one of the Courts. In the present case, therefore, when the complaint was refiled with the Saket Court within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the physical copy of the order passed by the Patiala House Court, the same ought to have been accepted by the Saket Court and the Saket Court ought to have decided and dispose of it in accordance with law.
5. In view of the above, present appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the High Court in Crl. Petition No.223/2016 as well as the order passed by the learned Metropoliton Magistrate (South East), District Saket which was the subject matter before the High Court are hereby quashed and set aside. The Metropoliton Magistrate (South East), District Saket is directed to accept the refiled complaint filed by the complainant on record and thereafter proceed further with the same and decide and dispose of the same in accordance with law and on its own merits after giving an opportunity to all concerned.
6. The present appeal is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent.
Appeal allowed.
********