2025:JHHC:17340 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 375 of 2025 …. Basudev Saha, aged about 70 years, son of Late Birju Lal Saha, resident of Village-Tasariya, Panchayat-Pokharia, P.O.-Sahargram, P.S.-Maheshpur, Dist.-Pakur …… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Pramod @ Pramod Yadav, aged about 38 years, S/o Radha Ram Yadav @ Radha Raman Yadav, R/o Village-Sura, P.O.- Pathardaha, P.S.-Sarath, Fari-Pathardaha, Dist.-Deoghar … Opp. Parties ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate Mr. Siddarth Ranjan, Advocate Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A.P.P For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Ranjit Kumar Tiwari, Advocate …… 03/01.07.2025 I.A. No.2529 of 2025 I.A. No.2529 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 50 days. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P and learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 and in view of the averments made in paragraph nos.4, 5 and 6 of the I.A. No.2529 of 2025, the delay of 50 days in filing the instant Criminal Revision Application is condoned. 3. Thus, I.A. No.2529 of 2025 is allowed and stands disposed of. Cr. Revision No. 375 of 2025 4. This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 07.10.2024 passed in Cr. 2025:JHHC:17340 2 Appeal No.46 of 2023 by learned Sessions Judge, Pakur, by which the appeal has been dismissed affirming the judgment dated 12.08.2022 passed by Sri Nirmal Kumar Bharti, learned S.D.J.M., Pakur in Complaint Case No.665 of 2019 by which learned trial court had acquitted the O.P. No.2 for the charge under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 5. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complaint case was pre-mature one. Trial Court has not decided the said issue and the same was found for first time in Cr. Appeal No.46 of 2023 and the appellate court has dismissed the appeal on the ground of pre-mature complaint. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Yogendra Pratap Singh Vs. Savitri Pandey & Anr. reported in (2014) 10 SCC 713 and also in the case of Shatrughan Chiraniya Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Jhar. 1578 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary) of this Court and hence the impugned judgment may be set aside and matter may be remitted back to the court below for deciding the complaint afresh. 6. Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 fairly admitted in the light of judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Yogendra Pratap Singh (supra) and judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Supra) that the complaint case was pre-matured. 7. It appears that complainant (petitioner) has filed Complaint Case No.665 of 2019 against the O.P. No.2. 8. From perusal of judgment of the learned Appellate court, it reveals from para-17 of the said judgment that the complaint case was pre-matured on 21.10.2019 and as such O.P. No.2 could not be convicted for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Yogendra Pratap Singh 2025:JHHC:17340 3 Vs. Savitri Pandey & Anr. (supra) held in para-41 as follows. “Para 41;- Section 142 of the NI Act prescribes the mode and so also the time within which a complaint for an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act can be filed. A complaint made under Section 138 by the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque has to be in writing and needs to be made within one month from the date on which the cause of action has arisen under clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138. The period of one month under Section 142 (b) begins from the date on which the cause of action has arisen under Clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138. However, if the complainant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not making a complaint within the prescribed period of one month, a complaint may be taken by the court after the prescribed period. Now, since our answer to Question (i) is in the negative, we observe that the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque may file a fresh complaint within one month from the date of decision in the criminal case and, in that event, delay in filing the complaint will be treated as having been condoned under the proviso to clause (b) of Section 142 of the NI Act. This direction shall be deemed to be applicable to all such pending cases where the complaint does not proceed further in view of our answer to Question (i). As we have already held that a complaint filed before the expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice issued under clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138 is not maintainable, the complainant cannot be permitted to present the very same complaint at any later stage. His remedy is only to file a fresh complaint; and if the same could not be filed within the time prescribed under Section 142 (b), his recourse is to seek the benefit of the proviso, satisfying the court of sufficient cause. Question (ii) is answered accordingly.” 10. Further in the case of Shatrughan Chiraniya Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr (supra), the Coordinate Bench of this Court held in paras-36 to 39, which read as follows: “Para 36;- This Court finds that in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court 2025:JHHC:17340 4 reported in (2014) 10 SCC 713 (Yogendra Pratap Singh v. Savitri Pandey), the complaint filed by the complainant is pre-mature as the cause of action for filing the complaint case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act had not crystalized on the date of filing of the complaint and accordingly, the complaint itself was pre- mature and hence not maintainable and accordingly, the petitioners could not have been convicted under the said Section. Accordingly, the impugned judgements and sentence so far as it relates to conviction under section 138 of N.I. Act passed by the learned courts below are hereby set aside. Para 37;- This court also finds that in the aforesaid judgement reported in (2014) 10 SCC 713 (supra), the Hon’ble supreme court while holding that the complaint as pre-mature also observed in Para-41 of the said judgement itself that the remedy for the Complainant was to file a fresh complaint and satisfy the court regarding sufficient cause for delay. Para 38;- Accordingly, since the complaint to the extent it relates to offence under section 138 of N.I. Act has been held to be pre-mature, the complainant may still file a fresh complaint and satisfy the court regarding sufficient cause for delay. The complainant may file the fresh case under section 138 of N.I. Act within a period of 2 months from today. Para 39;- Thus, the conviction and sentence under section 420 IPC is set aside the conviction and sentence under section 138 of N.I. Act is also set-aside with the aforesaid liberty to file a fresh complaint under section 138 of N.I. Act.” 11. It appears that complaint case filed on 21.10.2019 under Section 138 of N.I. Act was pre-mature, as the cause of action for filing the complaint was not matured on the date of filing of the complaint. 12. Accordingly, the judgment dated 07.10.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pakur passed in Cr. Appeal No. 46 of 2023, as also the judgment of acquittal dated 12.08.2022 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Pakur in Complaint Case No. 665 of 2019 are 2025:JHHC:17340 5 hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Trial Court for deciding the complaint afresh and the trial court shall dispose of the complaint, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. 13. However, it would be open to the learned court below to allow the complainant to file a fresh complaint. 14. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Revision Application stands allowed. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Rohit/