AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prafulla C. Pant, J.—Heard and perused the impugned summoning order passed by the trial court, and the order dated 27.04.2005, passed by Sessions Judge, Haridwar, in Criminal Revision No. 92 of 2005.
Brief facts of the case are that complainants filed the criminal complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the petitioners on which after recording statement of the complainants u/s 200, and that of the witnesses u/s 202 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners were summoned by the trial court. It is alleged in the criminal complaint that cheque No. 866223 dated 15.08.2004, for an amount of Rs. 1,37,400/- was given to the complainants which was dishonoured by the bank.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that before expiry of 15 days of receipt of notice, the criminal complaint was not maintainable. However, in view of principle of law laid down in Hemant Sharma v. Kishorilal Vanshkar 2009 (1) DCR 578 (M.P.), Smt. Hem Lata Gupta v. State of U.P. 2003 (1) DCR 36 (All), Rejikumar v. Sukumaran 2003 (1) DCR 39 (Ker) and Firm Naveen Project Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. 2005 (2) DCR 534 (Raj), this Court is of the view that there is no illegality in taking the cognizance by issuing summoning order after15 days of the receipt of notice, even if the complaint is filed before expiry of 15 days of receipt of notice.
For the reasons as discussed above, the petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed. Interim order dated 09.06.2005 is hereby vacated. (Stay Vacation Application No. 623 of 2008 also stands disposed of).