Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010030242023 2025:GAU-AS:7259 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1377/2024 SIMANGAL BRAHMA S/O PREM CHAND BRAHMA R/O VILL- SOUTH BESWARGAON, P.O. RANGALIKATA, P.S. KOKRAJHAR, DIST. KOKRAJHAR,BTR, ASSAM VERSUS PALLAVI RABHA D/O T.C. RABHA R/O DPS ROAD, LALUNG GAON, BORDOLOI PATH, NIZARA GHAT, LALOU LALUNG BYE LANE, NEAR PUTULI PRIMARY SCHOOL, P.S. GARCHUK, GUWAHATI-781034, DIST. KAMRU (METRO), ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. DITUL DAS, MS TINLUNG Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A K AHMED, MR. R CHETRI Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER Date : 04.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ditul Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Chetri, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This is an application filed under Section 482 read with Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying for setting aside and quashing the Order dated 28.07.2022, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kokrajhar in CR NI Case No.23/2022. 3. The case of the petitioner lies within a very short campus. The petitioner filed a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The case was filed beyond the time limit set by the Act, therefore the petitioner wanted to file an application praying for condonation of delay, that prayer was not considered rather the entire complaint case was dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Judgment of the Supreme Court that was delivered in “Pawan Kumar Ralli Vs. Maninder Singh Narula reported in 2014 15SCC 245”, paragraph 10 of the said Judgment is quoted as under: Learned Amicus finally submitted that the legislative intent in inserting the proviso to Clause (b) /of Section 142 of the Act was only to protect the Cheque holders from the defaulters who issued the Cheques and the Court should act reasonably in providing an opportunity to the Cheque holder to present his version on the issue of delay if any. After taking into consideration the reasons advanced by the Page No.# 3/3 Cheque holder, the Court should consider the question of delay and then only it should pass an order. But in the present case, the High Court adopted an unhealthy approach by passing the impugned order quashing the criminal proceedings on the ground of limitation, that too for a delay of only 25 days, without considering the appellant's reasons for the delay. He further submitted that the observation of the High Court in the impugned order that "allowing the appellant to pursue the Complaint against the respondent would be an abuse of process" is also not in the interest of justice. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the sides. 6. The petitioner wanted to file the petition seeking condonation of delay, the Trial Court should allow one opportunity to that effect. 7. Therefore the impugned order dismissing the complaint is set aside. 8. The Trial Court is directed to give one opportunity to the petitioner to file a prayer seeking condonation of delay and after hearing learned counsel for both the sides, the Trial Court shall dispose of the said application in accordance with the procedure as laid down by law. 9. With the aforesaid direction, this Criminal Petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant