(2025:JHHC:26828) 1 Cr. M.P. No.3104 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.3104 of 2022 ------ Ranjit Kumar Singh, son of Tirpit Singh, aged about 28 years, resident of Qtr. No.141, New Line, Refugee Colony, P.O. + P.S.- Golmuri, Jamshedpur, Dist.-East Singhbhum … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Mr. Rahul Singh, son of Dhananjay Singh, resident of Deepkala Bhawan, Daiguttu, Mango, Town Jamshedpur, P.O. + P.S. Mango, Dist.-East Singhbhum … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Pratik Sen, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Addl. P.P For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Praveen Shanker Dayal, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 28.06.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur, in connection with Complaint Case No.1325 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at this stage petitioner does not press the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding and confines his prayer to quash the order dated 28.06.2018 passed (2025:JHHC:26828) 2 Cr. M.P. No.3104 of 2022 in Complaint Case No.1325 of 2018, by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, whereby and whereunder, the learned Judicial Magistrate has found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. against the petitioner who is the accused person of the case and directed to issue summons against the petitioner. 4. The undisputed fact of the case is that the petitioner issued a cheque on 13.03.2018 of Rs.1,50,000/- and the same got dishonoured on 15.03.2018 for the reason “payments stopped by drawer”. Legal notice demanding the payment of cheque amount was issued on 17.03.2018 and the same was delivered to the petitioner on 20.03.2018 so in view of Section 142(b) of the N.I. Act, the complaint ought to have been filed within 45 days from 20.03.2018 as the cause of action arose because of non-payment of the cheque amount within fifteen days of receipt of notice on 20.03.2018 in terms of proviso (C) of Section 138 of the N.I. Act and in view of Section 142 (b), the complaint was to be made within one month from the date, on which cause of action arose under proviso (C) of Section 138 of the N.I. Act. So, the complaint ought to have been filed on or before 04.05.2018 but admittedly the complaint was filed on 14.05.2018. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proviso to Section 142 (b) of N.I. Act empowers the court to take cognizance after the said prescribed period of 45 days from 20.03.2018, if such court is satisfied by the complainant that the complainant had sufficient cause for not making the complaint within such period but the condition precedent is that, the accused of the case, in such an eventuality, must be issued notice and be provided with the opportunity of being heard and secondly the court concerned must in express terms record that the complainant has satisfied the court that the (2025:JHHC:26828) 3 Cr. M.P. No.3104 of 2022 complainant had sufficient cause for not filing complaint petition within such period. Hence, it is submitted that as neither opportunity of being heard has been provided to the petitioner, being the accused person of the case, nor any express satisfaction has been recorded by the court concerned, regarding the sufficient cause being shown by the complainant for not making the complaint within such period hence, the impugned order dated 28.06.2018 passed in Complaint Case No.1325 of 2018 by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur, being not sustainable in law be quashed and set aside. 6. 6. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the complainant could not file complaint within the stipulated period of 45 days but the complainant filed a petition under Section 142 of the N.I. Act on 11.06.2018 before passing the impugned order dated 28.06.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur, hence it is apparent that the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur has taken cognizance upon being satisfied by the complainant that complainant had sufficient cause for not making the complaint within stipulated time, hence there is absolutely no illegality in the order dated 28.06.2018. It is lastly submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that the accused person does not come into the picture in a criminal proceeding till the process is issued to him but this position of law is true when there is no delay in lunching the prosecution. In case of delay in launching the prosecution, certainly the accused person of the (2025:JHHC:26828) 4 Cr. M.P. No.3104 of 2022 case is entitled to get opportunity of being heard before the delay can be condoned as has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of P. K. Choudhary Vs. Commander, 48 BRTF (GREF) reported in 2008 AIR SC 1937. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Sharadchandra Vinayak Dongre reported in (1995) 1 SCC 42 relevant portion of paragraph-5 of which reads as under:- “5. In our view, the High court was perfectly justified in holding that the delay, if any, for launching the prosecution, could not have been condoned without notice to the respondents and behind their back and without recording any reasons for condonation of the delay. However, having come to that conclusion, it would have been appropriate for the High Court, without going into the merits of the case to have remitted the case to the trial court, with a direction to decide the application for condonation of delay afresh after hearing both sides. Xxxx xxxx xxxx’ (Emphasis supplied). has also held that the delay for launching the prosecution could not have been condoned without notice to the respondents and behind their back and without recording any reasons for condonation of the delay. 8. In view of the settled principle of law, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur has committed a grave illegality by holding therein that there appears prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and directed for issue of summons, even though admittedly, the complaint was filed beyond the period of limitations stipulated as already discussed in details in forgoing paragraphs of this judgment; without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner who was the accused person before it and without recording any reasons for the condonation of the delay. 9. Accordingly, the order dated 28.06.2018 passed in Complaint Case No.1325 of 2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur is not sustainable in law and the same is quashed and set aside. (2025:JHHC:26828) 5 Cr. M.P. No.3104 of 2022 10. The case is remitted to the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur to pass a fresh order after giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioner being the accused person of the case. 11. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed to the aforesaid extent only. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 4th of September, 2025 AFR/ Rohit