9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 390X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wana, District Meerut, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Mawana, Meerut, whereby applicant has been summoned for offence under Section 138 N.I. Act. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the impugned summoning order is against the law and that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. It was stated that impugned complaint is barred by limitation prescribed under N.I. Act and that provisions of Section 142(b) have not been complied with. Learned counsel has referred provisions of Section 142 N.I. Act and stated that impugned order is liable to be set aside. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that instant application has been filed with long delay after three years and that there is no illegalit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny such offence is however forbidden under Section 142 of the Act except upon a complaint in writing made by the payee or holder of the cheque in due course within a period of one month from the date the cause of action accrues to such payee or holder under clause (c) of proviso to section 138. (iii) The cause of action to file a complaint accrues to a complainant/payee/holder of a cheque in due course if: (a) the dishonoured cheque is presented to the drawee bank within a period of six months from the date of its issue. (b) if the complainant has demanded payment of cheque amount within thirty days of receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the dishonour of the cheque, and (c) if the drawer has failed to pay the chequ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e notice was served on 17.03.2017, thus the cause of action arose on 15.04.2017 when the applicant failed to make payment within 15 days after receipt of notice, and thereafter the complaint was filed within the prescribed period of one month after cause of action arose. Thus, all the conditions are satisfied for initiation of proceedings under section 138 N. I. Act and it can not be said that complaint filed by O.P. No. 2 is barred by limitation and therefore the contention raised by learned counsel has no force. So far as these contentions are concerned that the complaint has made false and baseless allegations and with malfide intention, it may be stated that it is well settled that in determining the question whether any process is to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
