p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.611 of 2025 Rashmi Ranjan Lenka …. Petitioner Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha & another …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Sahoo, ASC Mr. R.C. Rout, Advocate for O.P. No.2 CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. ORDER 20.11.2025 03. 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order at Annexure-4 dated 22nd July, 2025 passed in connection with 1.C.C. No.18 of 2024 by the learned J.M.F.C., Pattamundai on the grounds stated. 3. Mr. Khuntia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is covered by the decision of the Apex Court in Yogendra Pratap Singh Vrs. Savitri Pandey and another AIR 2015 SC 157 and hence, she is entitled to file a fresh complaint. 4. Mr. Rout, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 submits that there is no error in the impugned order i.e. Annexure-4 of the learned court below as before expiry of the p. 2 stipulated period prescribed, the complaint was filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The submission is that the legal notice was served on opposite party No.2 on 5th September, 2024, whereas, the complaint was filed on 17th September, 2024 before expiry of fifteen (15) days as statutorily allowed. Referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Haru Das Gupta Vrs. State of West Bengal AIR 1972 SC 1293, it is submitted by Mr. Rout, learned counsel that the complaint since filed before expiry of fifteen days, there was no cause of action, in the sense, such complaint was no complaint in the eye of law. 5. It is not in denial that the complaint was filed on 17th September, 2024 and admittedly, before fifteen days expired from the date of service of notice on opposite party No.2 on 5th September, 2024. Mr. Khuntia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the stipulated period had expired by the time when the order under challenge arrived i.e. on 22nd July, 2024. But, according to the settled position of law, a Court cannot take cognizance of an offence, if there is no compliance of the provisions of Section 138 of the N.I. Act. In other words, on any such complaint filed before expiry of fifteen days from the date, on which, the notice has been served on the drawer, a Court is not to take cognizance of the offence. Having said that and regard being had to the settled position of law reiterated by the Apex Court even in Yogendra Pratap Singh (supra), the Court is of the view that the learned court below did not p. 3 commit any error in dismissing the complaint vide Annexure-4. But at the same time, it is concluded that the petitioner may avail the remedy with a fresh complaint filed on any such plea as has been advanced provided the law permits and for consideration of the learned Court below on merit. 6. Consequently, the revision petition stands dismissed, however, with the observations made hereinabove. 7. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Balaram Designation: Personal Assistant