(2026:JHHC:16264) 1 Cr.M.P. No.1456 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1456 of 2025 Chhaya Kumari, w/o Niraj Kumar daughter-in-law of Kameshwar Lal, aged about 45 years, resident of Nawatoli, Ram Mandir Road, P.O. & P.S.-Daltonganj Town, Dist.-Palamau .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Ajay Kumar Singh, s/o late Muneshwar Singh, resident of Hamidganj, Surya Mandir, P.O. & P.S.-Daltonganj Town, Dist.- Palamau …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Spl. P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Ravindra Nath, Advocate ….. By the Court:- I.A. No.7120 of 2026 1. Heard the parties. 2. This interlocutory application has been filed with the prayer for early hearing of this criminal miscellaneous petition. 3. Since, hearing of this criminal miscellaneous petition is taken up today, hence, this interlocutory application is disposed of being infructuous. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Cr.M.P. No. 1456 of 2025 1. Heard the parties. (2026:JHHC:16264) 2 Cr.M.P. No.1456 of 2025 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 30.04.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-cum-Special Court N.I. Act Cases, Palamu in connection with Complaint Case No. 782 of 2025 whereby and where under, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-cum-Special Court N.I. Act Cases, Palamu has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. The case of the complainant is that the petitioner issued three cheques one of Rs.9,80,000/-, the second of Rs.1,50,000/- and the third one of Rs. 2,00,000/-in favour of the complainant on 05.10.2024, 15.10.2024 and 25.10.2024 respectively. The said cheques were presented by the complainant in his bank account on 21.11.2024 and the same were dishonoured on 27.11.2024. The complainant issued demand notice on 05.12.2024. There is no material to show whether the said notice was ever served upon the petitioner. It is the case of the complainant that the petitioner did not respond to the said demand notice nor paid the cheque amount as demanded by the complainant within the stipulated time. The complaint was filed on 15.02.2025. 4. It is contended by the petitioner that the petitioner replied to the said demand notice of the complainant through his counsel on 19.12.2024 whereby, the petitioner denied his liability to pay the (2026:JHHC:16264) 3 Cr.M.P. No.1456 of 2025 cheque amounts and the said demand notice sent by the Advocate of the complainant was received by the petitioner on 06.12.2024; so the complaint was filed within the period of limitation prescribed therefor by the statute. It is further submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate committed an illegality by taking cognizance of the offence without passing any order for condonation of the delay in filing of the complaint. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of S. Nagesh vs. Shobha S. Aradhya reported in 2026 INSC 27 and submits that in paragraph nos. 14 and 15 thereof, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has quashed the entire criminal proceeding of the P.C.R. case as cognizance was taken without condoning the delay in presenting the complaint. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of H.S. Oberoi Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. M/s. Msn Woodtech reported in 2025 Supreme (SC) 1692, paragraph nos. 8 and 9 of which reads as under:- “8. Once the statute prescribes a mandatory time limit for filing a complaint, there cannot be any deviation from the same except when an application accompanying the complaint is filed seeking condonation disclosing reasons for the delay and even then it is obligatory on the part of the Court to take note of such filing beyond limitation and to consider the reasons disclosed independently and to come to a judicious conclusion that in the facts and circumstances of that case condonation is justified. The same not having been done, the order cannot be sustained. (2026:JHHC:16264) 4 Cr.M.P. No.1456 of 2025 9. Accordingly, the order issuing summons to the appellants by the Trial Court as upheld by the High Court is set aside. In the result, the complaint itself stands quashed. The appeal stands allowed.” and submits that therein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has quashed the entire complaint in which cognizance was taken without condonation of delay. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 7. Learned Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in this criminal miscellaneous petition but did not dispute the fact that the demand notice was issued on 05.12.2024 and complaint was filed on 15.02.2025. It is submitted by the learned Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that since the petitioner managed to ensure that the acknowledgement of the notice sent to him is not received by the complainant so there was no option left for the complainant to wait for 30 days for deemed service of notice and to wait for a further period of 15 days expecting the petitioner to pay the demanded amount but even after the said period as the petitioner did not pay the demanded amount, the complaint was filed within 30 days of the cause of action; therefore there was no delay in filing the complaint and consequently the question of condonation of delay by the learned Judicial Magistrate does not arise. It is next submitted that the judgements relied upon by the petitioner are not relevant to (2026:JHHC:16264) 5 Cr.M.P. No.1456 of 2025 the facts of this case as unlike those cases, in this case there is no delay in filing the complaint. It is lastly submitted that therefore this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 8. 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 Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 which reads as under:- 142. Cognizance of offences.—[(1)] Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),— (a) no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 138 except upon a complaint, in writing, made by the payee or, as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque; (b) such complaint is made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138: [Provided that the cognizance of a complaint may be taken by the Court after the prescribed period, if the complainant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making a complaint within such period.] (c) no court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under Section 138.] [(2) The offence under Section 138 shall be inquired into and tried only by a court within whose local jurisdiction,— (a) if the cheque is delivered for collection through an account, the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the account, is situated; or (b) if the cheque is presented for payment by the payee or holder in due course, otherwise through an account, the branch of the drawee bank where the drawer maintains the account, is situated. Explanation.—For the purposes of clause (a), where a cheque is delivered for collection at any branch of the bank of the payee or holder in due course, then, the cheque shall be deemed to have been delivered to the branch of the bank in which the payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the account.]” (2026:JHHC:16264) 6 Cr.M.P. No.1456 of 2025 envisages that the court can take cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act only if upon a complaint in writing, made by the payee, or as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque is made within one month from the date on which cause of action arises under clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, which reads as under :- “138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.—Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to [two] years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless— (a) xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx (b) xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “debt or other liability” means a legally enforceable debt or other liability. Plain reading of clause (c) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, makes it abundantly clear that the cause of action arises, if the drawer of the cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or as the case may be, to the holder (2026:JHHC:16264) 7 Cr.M.P. No.1456 of 2025 in due course of the cheque within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. 9. Now the undisputed fact remains that the demand notice was issued on 05.12.2024. The undisputed fact remains that neither any service report of notice issued to the complainant nor any acknowledgment document of the receipt of the notice was filed by the complainant. The complainant in the complaint has in no uncertain manner has mentioned that though the complainant issued demand notice on 05.12.2024 but thereafter, the petitioner did not contact the complainant. So, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-cum-Special Court N.I. Act Cases, Palamu taking aid of Section 27 of General Clauses Act assumed that there is deemed service of the notice after 30 days of its issuance that comes to on or about 04.01.2025 and the petitioner was supposed to pay the amount of the cheque within 15 days thereafter i.e. on or about 18.01.2025 and cause of action for filing the complaint was on 18.01.2025 and the limitation was up to 17.02.2025 but the complaint was filed before that on 15.02.2025 hence, no illegality has been committed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class- cum-Special Court N.I. Act Cases, Palamu in taking cognizance of the offence and so far as the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner received the notice on 06.12.2024 or that he replied to the notice on 19.12.2024 is concerned, the same is the defence of the petitioner involving disputed question of fact, which the petitioner can take during the trial of the case but there being no (2026:JHHC:16264) 8 Cr.M.P. No.1456 of 2025 illegality in the impugned order, since on the basis of the averments made in the complaint, there was no delay in filing the complaint, hence the question of condonation of delay by the learned Judicial Magistrate does not arise. Therefore, the judgements relied upon by the petitioner is not relevant to the facts of this case, hence unlike in those cases there was no delay involved in filing the complaint in this case, on the basis of the case made out by the complainant in his complaint. Under such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to accede to the prayer of the petitioner of this criminal miscellaneous petition in exercise of the power under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 10. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 8th June, 2026 AFR/Gunjan/- Uploaded on 09/06/2026