HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 11596 of 2025 Court No. - 88 HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State- respondent, and perused the record. 2. The present petition has been filed challenging the impougned order dated 25.07.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit, in Criminal Revision No. 46 of 2025 titled as Mohd. Ismail v. Anis-Ur-Rahman and Others, whereby the revisional court upheld the order dated 06.04.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit condoning a delay of approximately 10 months in filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 3. As per the case of the complainant- opposite party no. 2, a cheque for a sum of Rs. 22,00,500/- was issued by the petitioner on 08.01.2020 in discharge of a lawful liability. The said cheque was dishonoured on 04.03.2020 due to insufficient funds. It is further stated that the petitioner thereafter requested for additional time to make payment and left for Dubai on 07.03.2020, and he remained there for almost one year owing to the COVID-19 pandemic and suspension of international flights. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant returned to India nearly a year later and issued a statutory demand notice under Section 138(b) of the NI Act on 04.01.2021, and subsequently filed the complaint before the competent court. The delay in filing the complaint was condoned by the trial court, relying upon the notification dated 28.03.2020 issued by the High Court and the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No(s). 3/2020, In Re: Cognizance for Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dr. Arun Srivastav, Vishal Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Mohd. Ismail .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) Extension of Limitation, which extended the period of limitation in view of the pandemic. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned orders on the ground that the Supreme Court's directions pertain only to proceedings that were already pending and cannot be extended to cover the statutory limitation for issuing a legal notice under Section 138(b) of the NI Act. It is submitted that such limitation is mandatory in nature and cannot be relaxed and extended in the absence of express statutory provision. 6. In response, learned A.G.A. has opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the impugned orders have been passed in accordance with law and do not suffer from any illegality and irregularity. 7. Upon consideration of the submissions advanced and perusal of the material on record, this Court finds no substance in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. The Supreme Court, in the aforementioned suo motu proceedings, had clearly extended the period of limitation for filing cases and proceedings before all courts and tribunals across the country, including criminal complaints. The said directions were intended to address the extraordinary and unprecedented circumstances arising out of the pandemic and are equally applicable to proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the NI Act. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds no ground to invoke its inherent powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. The present petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. October 8, 2025 Anil K. Sharma A227 No. 11596 of 2025 2 (Vinod Diwakar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad