(2025:JHHC:11841) 1 Cr. M.P. No.675 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.675 of 2019 ------ Gopal Krishna Verma @ Gopal Krishan Verma, aged about 45 years, S/o Lal Mohan Prasad, R/o Krishna Kutir, Near Khatal, Infront of Surya Mandir, Bekar Bandh, P.O. & P.S. Sadar, District Dhanbad … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Raushan Kumar Sinha, Aged about 38 years, S/o Late Harihar Prasad, R/o Mohalla Kani Bajar, P.O. & P.S. Sadar, District Hazaribag … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Rishi Pallava, Advocate For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, Addl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Nilesh Kr. Gupta, Advocate Mr. Vikash Anand, 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 order taking cognizance dated 16.01.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magisrtate-1st Class, Hazaribagh including the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No.1843 of 2018; whereby and where under the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, inter alia against the petitioner for having committed the same. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the complainant/opposite party No.2 filed Complaint Case No.1843 of 2018 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, (2025:JHHC:11841) 2 Cr. M.P. No.675 of 2019 Hazaribagh alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act; on the allegation that the petitioner issued a cheque dated 28.06.2018 for Rs.3,00,000/- which was dishonoured upon being presented for encashment by the complainant in her account on 29.06.2018 and thereafter again, the same was dishonoured on 05.07.2018. On 18.07.2018, the complainant issued a notice demanding payment of the cheque amount; which was received by the petitioner. The petitioner replied to the said notice of the complainant which was received by the advocate of the complainant on 04.08.2018. The complainant went outside the State in connection with his work, hence, he could not file the complaint within time. The learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Hazaribagh perused the complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant as well as the original documents and considered the prayer for condonation of delay made by the complainant in his complaint and condoned the delay and after considering the materials in the record; found sufficient materials to proceed against the petitioner for having committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and took cognizance of the said offence and ordered for issuance of the summons. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the High Court of Tripura in the case of Sri Sumit Deb vs. Sri Joy Deb & Another passed in Crl. Appeal No.09 of 2020 wherein the High Court of Tripura has relied upon the judgment of 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 (2025:JHHC:11841) 3 Cr. M.P. No.675 of 2019 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) and submits that the learned Magistrate has committed a grave illegality by condoning the delay without notice to the petitioner. 5. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed. 6. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 oppose the prayer made by the petitioner in the instant Cr.M.P. 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 this Court, in the case of Jawed Alam vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another passed in Cr.M.P. No.4611 of 2022 dated 22nd January, 2024, had the occasion of considering the issue involved in this case and in that case, this court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of P.K. Choudhary vs. Commander, 48 BRTF (GREF) reported in 2008 AIR SC 1937 wherein, in a case relating to the offences punishable under Sections 166 and 167 of Indian Penal Code, when a complaint petition was filed belatedly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that the delay in launching the prosecution could not have been condoned without notices to the accused person of the case and in such a case the accused person was entitled to get an opportunity of being heard before delay could be condoned. In that case, (2025:JHHC:11841) 4 Cr. M.P. No.675 of 2019 this Court reiterated the settled principle of law that accused person does not come into the picture at all till the process is issued but this position of law is true when there is no delay in launching the prosecution and in case of delay in launching the prosecution certainly, the accused persons of the case is entitled to get an opportunity of being heard before the delay be condoned in view of the ratio of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of P.K. Choudhary vs. Commander, 48 BRTF (GREF) (supra) as well as in view of paragraph No.5 of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Sharadchandra Vinayak Bongre & Ors. reported in (supra). 8. reported in (supra). 8. In view of the said settled principle of law, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Hazaribagh has committed a grave illegality by condoning the delay in filing the complaint without giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioner of the instant Cr.M.P. who was an accused before it but still having taken cognizance of the offence. 9. Accordingly, the order dated 16.01.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magisrtate-1st Class, Hazaribagh in connection with Complaint Case No.1843 of 2018, is quashed and set aside. 10. The matter is remitted back to the court concerned or its successor court to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. 11. Both the petitioner and the opposite party No.2 of the instant Cr.M.P. are directed to appear before the learned trial court or its successor court on 16th June, 2025 for taking instruction regarding further proceedings of the case. (2025:JHHC:11841) 5 Cr. M.P. No.675 of 2019 12. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. 13. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., the interim relief granted vide order dated 27.11.2019, is vacated. 14. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 22nd of April, 2025 AFR/ Animesh