Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1714 of 2019 Revisionist :- Ram Suruj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Kedar Nath Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This criminal revision has been preferred to allow the present revision and quash/set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 14.3.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No.11, Deoria in Complaint Case No. 5486 of 2018 and to direct the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.11, Deoria to pass a fresh order on the complaint filed by the revisionist dated 13.12.2018, under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act and summon the opposite party no.2 to face the trial.
The revisionist is the complainant and his claim is that he received cheques for Rs.7,44,000/- from the opposite party no.2, which on presentation was dishonored by the concerned bank on 11.10.2018. Thereafter, notice was prepared on 6.11.2018 and it was sent on 12.11.2018. However the court below after recording the statement of the complainant and witnesses rejected the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
Learned A.G.A. claimed that complaint is barred by time on account of notice being send beyond 30 days time.
At this stage, specific contention has been raised that the notice in fact was preferred on 6.11.2018, whereas the same could not be send on account of Deepawali Holiday by the counsel for the complainant and after reopening of the post office, it was send on 12.11.2018.
Considering the submissions and also perused the impugned order, admittedly the arguments raised have not been elaborated in the complaint nor has it been stated in the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the contention that notice had been preferred on 6.11.2018, but could not be sent by the counsel for the complainant cannot be accepted on its face value. Admittedly, the notice was beyond time i.e. 30 days after the notice of the summon was received, no perversity is seen in the complainant.
This application lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 26.4.2019 S Rawat