IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4362/2018 Between:
1. Sri. Lakshmana Kumar, S/o. Nanje Gowda, Aged About 46 Years, 2. Smt Chaitra, W/o. Lakshmana, Aged About 40 Years, Petitioner Nos.1 & 2 are R/at No.18, 4th Main, Mariyappana Palya, Jagajyothi Lay-Out, Jnanabharathi Post, Bangalore-560050. ... Petitioners (By Sri. Nagaraja.N, Advocate) And:
Sri. Narasimha Baliga S/o. Late B Govinda Baliga, Aged about 55 Years, R/at No.65, Sundarnagar, 1st Main, 2nd Cross, Gokula, Bangalore-560054. ... Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 11.12.2017 passed by the XII Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru in C.C.No.7444/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and also consequent further proceedings which is pending before the XII Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru.
This Criminal Petition coming for Admission this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard Sri. N.Nagaraja, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and perused the records 2. Respondent herein has filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., against petitioners alleging they had committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. There was a delay in filing the complaint. Hence an application under Section 142(b) of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was filed for condoning the delay of 89 days in filing the complaint. This application came to be opposed by the petitioners herein namely, accused and learned Trial Judge after recording evidence of the complainant-respondent and after considering rival contentions, by impugned order, has allowed the said application by condoning delay of 89 days in filing the complaint. Same is under challenge before this Court.
3. It is the contention of Sri. N.Nagaraja, learned counsel appearing for petitioners that Trial Judge has committed a serious error in condoning delay of 89 days, which delay was without sufficient cause and as such, application ought not to have been allowed and it ought to have been dismissed. Hence, he prays for quashing of the impugned order dated 11/12/2017 in C.C.No.7444/2018 passed by the learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru and prays for allowing the petition.
4. Having heard learned counsel appearing for petitioners and after carefully and cautiously considering the contentions of learned counsel appearing for petitioners, it is apt and appropriate to note at this juncture itself that proviso to Section 142(b) of N.I.Act enables the jurisdictional Court to entertain the complaint, if the complainant explains the delay by showing sufficient cause in not filing the complaint within prescribed period. In the instant case, cause that has been shown by complainant namely, he has stated that after service of statutory notice, accused- petitioners had agreed to settle the matter before mediator by name Mr. Prakash and in fact, said Prakash had received the original cheques from the complainant and this fact has been reiterated by the complainant on oath by entering witness box. Said evidence of PW-1 (complainant) has remained uncontroverted viz., he has not been cross-examined. Thus, statement made on oath would satisfy the cause for delay or sufficient cause has been explained which has been accepted by the Court below and rightly so. Said finding would not call for interference by this Court.
No grounds, petition stands rejected.
In view of petition having been rejected, I.A.No.1/2018 for stay does not survive for consideration, same stands rejected.
SD/- JUDGE SMJ