P.K.Dinesh Kumar vs R.M.Shylesh Kumar on 7 October, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 2985 of 2009()


1. P.K.DINESH KUMAR, AGED 40 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. R.M.SHYLESH KUMAR,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :07/10/2009

 O R D E R
              M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
            ===========================
            CRL.M.C.No.2985       OF 2009
            ===========================

      Dated this the 7th day of October,2009

                        ORDER

This petition is filed under section 482 of Code

of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure 2 order passed

by the Sessions Court, Kozhikode in Crl.R.P.41/2008

dismissing the revision confirming Annexure 1 order

passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-IV,

Kozhikode dismissing the petition filed by the

petitioner to condone the delay of 30 days in filing

the complaint alleging offence under section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

was heard.

3. The argument of the learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner is that the delay was only 30

days and the courts below should not have

taken a technical ground to dismiss

the petition when petitioner has specifically stated

that the delay was not wilful and in such circumstance,

considering the fact that the delay is only 30 days, it

is to be condoned.

Crl.M.C.2985/2009 2

4. On hearing the learned counsel, I find no

illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the

learned Magistrate or the learned Sessions Judge. The

question is not whether the delay was caused wilfully.

Instead the question is whether there is sufficient cause

for condoning the delay, as the complaint alleging

commission of an offence under section 138 of N.I. Act was

not filed within the time. On facts courts below rightly

found that petitioner is not entitled to get the delay

condoned. As per the medical certificate petitioner had

gone to see the doctor only on 6.10.2006. From the date of

failure to pay the amount within fifteen days of receipt of

notice sent under section 138(b) of Negotiable Instruments

Act, the complaint should have been filed on 3.10.2006.

Even after reaching back from the hospital on 12.10.2006,

complaint was filed only on 17.10.2006. When there is no

explanation for the said delay, the petition can only be

dismissed. In such circumstance, petition is dismissed.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
tpl/-

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

———————

W.P.(C).NO. /06

———————

JUDGMENT

SEPTEMBER,2006