Judgment Intelligence
Other- Court
- Rajasthan High Court
- Date of Decision
- 28 March 2024
- Bench
- Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Sections 138, 142
Appeal disposed of. The Appellate Court's judgment of 24.05.2022 was set aside and the trial court's judgment modified: the appellant may file a fresh complaint within one month, with the delay treated as condoned, to be decided on the merits, preferably within a year (paras 21-24).
Key holdings
- A complaint filed before the fifteen days under Section 138(c) expire cannot be taken cognizance of (paras 11, 14).
- Under Yogendra Pratap Singh the payee may file a fresh complaint, the delay being treated as condoned; the direction covers all pending cases (para 12).
- An appellate court that finds the complaint premature should grant liberty to file afresh, not simply acquit the accused (para 13).
- A second complaint on the same facts does not amount to double jeopardy (para 15).
- The drawer cannot escape prosecution merely because the first complaint was premature (para 20).
Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
Court's Findings
Legal Principle
Precedents Relied Upon
- Yogendra Pratap Singh v. Savitri Pandey (2015) AIR (SC) 157
A complaint under Section 138 filed before the expiry of fifteen days from service of notice is no complaint in the eye of law and cognizance cannot be taken on it; the payee may file a fresh complaint within one month of the decision in the criminal case, the delay being treated as condoned under the proviso to Section 142(b), and this applies to all pending cases.
- Gajanand Burange v. Laxmi Chand Goyal Criminal Appeal No. 1229/2022, decided on 12.08.2022
Following Yogendra Pratap Singh, the Supreme Court held a premature complaint not maintainable but gave the complainant liberty to institute a fresh complaint and seek the benefit of the proviso to Section 142(b).
- Ashby v. White (1703) 92 ER 126, (1703) 2 Ld Raym 938, (1703) 1 Sm LC (13th Edn) 253
When the law gives a person a right, he must have the means to vindicate and maintain it and a remedy if he is injured in its exercise; a right without a remedy is a vain thing.
