Mr. Aditya Dewan and Mr. Sahil Chandra, Advs v. AMARENDRA DHARI SINGH

Judgment

1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, ‘CrPC’) has been filed seeking the following prayers:- “a. Quash and set aside the Order dated 13.09.2022 passed in Criminal Complaint no. 6073/2022 titled as Amarendra Dhari Singh vs. Aditi Singh pending before the Ld. MM (NI ACT) South-East, Saket Courts, New Delhi; and Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHIWANI NEGI Signing Date:18.04.2025 15:57:07 CRL.M.C. 6436/2023 b. Quash and set aside the Criminal Complaint no. 6073/2022 (filed by the Respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881) and pending before the Ld. MM (NI ACT) South-East, Saket Courts along with all consequential proceedings arising thereto, and/or c. Pass any such order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The petitioner is facing trial in CC No. 6073/2022 titled as “Amarendra Dhari Singh v. Aditi Singh” for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to ‘NI Act’). The respondent herein who is supposedly maternal uncle of the present petitioner had filed the aforesaid complaint with respect to dishonour of a cheque bearing No. 000118 dated 30.03.2022 for an amount of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- (Five Crore Rupees) drawn on HDFC Bank, Ved Mansion Branch, which was subsequently presented in HDFC Bank, South Extension-I Branch. The petitioner was summoned by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide impugned summoning order dated 13.09.2022. The only ground urged before

this Court in the present petition is that the impugned order dated 13.09.2022 was beyond the period prescribed of limitation under the NI Act. The relevant dates as set out in the present petition are as under: - Relevant Date Particulars/Remarks

31.03.2022 Return Memo was issued by HDFC Bank in relation to the subject cheque. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHIWANI NEGI Signing Date:18.04.2025 15:57:07 CRL.M.C. 6436/2023

25.04.2022 Statutory Legal Notice issued on behalf of the Respondent to the Petitioner in terms of Section 138 of the NI Act.

27.04.2022 Statutory Legal Notice is stated to have been received at the address of the Petitioner

12.05.2022 Fifteen-day notice period in terms of the Statutory Legal Notice lapsed, and the cause of action for filing the complaint arose

12.06.2022 Prescribed period of limitation of 30 days for filing of the complaint lapsed

22.07.2022 After about three months from the date of issuance the Statutory Legal Notice and after an unexplained delay of more than a month when the statutory time limit had expired, the Complaint was filed by the Respondent before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate (NI ACT) South-East, Saket Courts, New Delhi

13.09.2022 Learned Metropolitan Magistrate (NI ACT) South- East, Saket Courts, New Delhi without considering the aspect of delay took cognizance of the offence as alleged in the Complaint and consequently summons were issued to the Petitioner herein who has been made an accused in the said proceedings. The Petitioner has since been suffering the rigors of a misconceived trial Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHIWANI NEGI Signing Date:18.04.2025 15:57:07 CRL.M.C. 6436/2023

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the complaint filed by the respondent is in violation of the prescribed period of limitation under Section 142 of the NI Act. It is submitted that the delay in filing of the said complaint has not been explained in the complaint and the learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide the impugned summoning order dated 13.09.2022 mechanically took cognizance of the said complaint without even considering the fact that the complaint filed was time barred. Attention of this Court was drawn to para 25 of the complaint wherein it stated as under:- “25. The present Complaint is being filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation as provided under the NI Act.”

4. Reliance is placed on the following judgments by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition:- (i) SIL Import, USA v. Exim Aides Silk Exporters1, (ii) MSR Leathers v. S. Palaniappan And Another2, (iii) Simranpal Singh Suri v. State3,