IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15955 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2276 Year-2013 Thana- MUZFFARPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Subodh Kumar Rai S/o Baleshwar Rai, R/o VillageP.O.- Rampur Shyamchand, P.S.- Raghopur, District- Vaishali, at present R/o Mohalla- Q. No.269/F, Bibiganj, Railway Colony near Pani Tanki, PO- MIT P.S.- Brahmpura, District- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Arbind Kumar Singh, S/o Sri Sachidanand Singh, R/o Village- Katahipul Sabjimandi Technical Chouk, P.S.- Kazi Mohammadpur, District- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Udit Narayan Singh, Advocate Mr. Gajendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Nagendra Prasad, A.P.P. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR ORAL ORDER 10 13-08-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 2. The present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 04.06.2014 passed by the learned Sub-Judge-X- cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, in Complaint Case No. 2276 of 2013, Trial No. 312 of 2016, whereby cognizance has been taken under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15955 of 2017(10) dt.13-08-2026 2/6 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, Arbind Kumar Singh , alleged that the petitioner had borrowed a total sum of Rs.7,00,000/- from him on different occasions, assuring repayment and offering his land as security. Subsequently, the petitioner agreed to sell the said land to the complainant and received further consideration towards the proposed sale, but later sold the land to another person. Thereafter, a Panchayati was held, wherein, on 25.10.2012, the petitioner executed a hand-note acknowledging his liability to repay the entire amount. Subsequently, on 12.04.2013, the petitioner issued Cheque No. 783291 drawn on Allahabad Bank for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- towards repayment of the said amount. However, the cheque was dishonored due to insufficiency of funds. When the complainant demanded repayment on 29.04.2013, the petitioner allegedly quarrelled with him and assaulted him. The complainant thereafter issued legal notices dated 30.04.2013 and 24.07.2013, but the petitioner failed to repay the amount. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order taking cognizance is bad in law as well as on facts. It is submitted that the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance in view of the provisions contained in Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15955 of 2017(10) dt.13-08-2026 3/6 Section 142(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, particularly when the complaint was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. It is further submitted that, from a bare perusal of the order taking cognizance, it would appear that the delay in filing the complaint was not condoned in terms of the proviso to Section 142(1)(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Japani Sahoo vs. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, reported in (2007) 7 SCC 394, wherein the law relating to limitation for filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been considered. It is submitted that the cause of action arises upon expiry of the statutory period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice demanding payment and the complaint is required to be filed within the prescribed period thereafter. It is further submitted that a complaint filed beyond the prescribed period is not maintainable unless the complainant satisfies the requirements of the proviso to Section 142(1)(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act by showing sufficient cause for the delay. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further drawn the attention of this Court to the averments made in the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15955 of 2017(10) dt.13-08-2026 4/6 complaint petition and submitted that although the cheque in question was dated 12.04.2013, the complaint does not disclose the date on which the cheque was presented for encashment or the date on which the complainant received information regarding its dishonour on account of insufficiency of funds. 7. It is further submitted that as per the complaint petition itself, the first legal notice was admittedly issued to the petitioner on 30.04.2013. It has also been stated therein that the petitioner neither returned the money nor executed the sale deed, whereafter a second notice was issued on 24.07.2013 and the complaint was subsequently filed on 23.08.2013. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cause of action, according to the first notice, would have arisen upon expiry of fifteen days therefrom and the complaint ought to have been filed within the period prescribed under Section 142(1)(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. However, the complaint was filed much beyond the prescribed period. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Negotiable Instruments Act does not contemplate issuance of a second statutory notice so as to revive or extend the limitation period. It is thus submitted that in the absence of any order condoning the delay on the basis of sufficient cause, Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15955 of 2017(10) dt.13-08-2026 5/6 the complaint filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation was not maintainable and the order taking cognizance is unsustainable in law. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer of the petitioner. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 submits that a second notice was issued to the petitioner and on the basis thereof, it could be gathered that the complaint had been filed within the period of limitation. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 11. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and the materials available on record, this Court finds that the complaint was filed beyond the period prescribed under Section 142(1)(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The issuance of a subsequent notice cannot, by itself, have the effect of extending or reviving the statutory period of limitation. The complainant was required to satisfy the requirements of the proviso to Section 142(1)(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act by showing sufficient cause for the delay and seeking condonation thereof. 12. In view of the provisions contained in Section 142 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15955 of 2017(10) dt.13-08-2026 6/6 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Japani Sahoo vs. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, reported in (2007) 7 SCC 394, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of the criminal prosecution against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the order dated 04.06.2014 passed by the learned Sub-Judge-X-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, in Complaint Case No. 2276 of 2013, Trial No. 312 of 2016, taking cognizance under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, is hereby quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned. 13. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed. 14. It is, however, made clear that this order shall not prejudice the right of either party to agitate their claim, if any, before any other forum in accordance with law. Neha/- (Praveen Kumar, J) U T