Patna High Court
MANOJ TIWARI @ MANOJ KUMAR TIWARIversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ANSUL
Holding
The order dated 14‑12‑2020 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance under Section 138 NI Act is quashed.
Summary
The petitioner Manoj Tiwari challenged the order dated 14‑12‑2020 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Champaran, which had taken cognizance of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and issued process against him. The complainant alleged that he had given Rs.1,63,000 to the accused, who later issued a cheque that bounced due to insufficient funds. The court noted that the cheque was dated 28‑06‑2020 but was presented on 06‑02‑2020, indicating a typographical error, and that the complaint was filed on 09‑12‑2020, well after the bounce, making the filing delayed. It was observed that the dates appear to have been deliberately altered to fall within the pandemic‑related exemption period granted by higher courts. Consequently, the High Court held that the lower court had not examined the essential material and that the complaint was not filed with a clean hand. The petition was allowed and the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate was quashed.
Issues considered
- Whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate could validly take cognizance of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act despite the delayed filing of the complaint.
- Whether the pandemic‑related condonation of delay is applicable in the present case.
Legislation cited
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s. 138
Subjects
- Section 138 NI Act
- cheque bounce
- quash order
- delay in filing
- pandemic exemption
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16980 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1566 Year-2020 Thana- EAST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT
District- East Champaran
======================================================
MANOJ TIWARI @ MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI Son of Madan Tiwari
Resident of Siswa, P.O. Sirni Bazar, P.S. - Malahi, District - East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. Ashok Kumar Singh Son of Late Ramratan Rai Proprietor, Shrimangal
Motors (Mahindra Tractor Agency) Balua Tal, P.S. - Motihari Town, District
- East Champaran.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajesh Ranjan
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Choubey Jawahar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
ORAL ORDER
7 16-03-2026 Heard the parties.
2. This application is being filed for quashing of order
dated 14.12.2020 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
East Champaran (Motihari) in Complaint Case No. 1566 (C) of
2020 whereby the learned Court below has taken cognizance of
offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and issued processes
against the petitioner.
3. The complainant lodged the instant complaint with
the allegation that he and the accused were known to each other
for the last 4-5 years and they became friends.
4. The complainant gave Rs.1,63,000/- to the accused
and after some time when the money was demanded the accused
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16980 of 2022(7) dt.16-03-2026
2/3
gave a Cheque No.330080 dated 28.06.2020 drawsn on the
State Bank of India for the amount of Rs.1,63,000/-. The
complaint also states that the bank informed about the
insufficiency of fund in the bank on 23.09.2020. The complaint
was filed on 09.12.2020 and straightway cognizance seems to
have been taken on 14.12.2020. The learned C.J.M. apparently
did not had time or capacity to look at the Cheque No.330080 or
the cheque return memo. The cheque was issued on 28.01.2020
which was presented to the Bank and return memo shows that
the date is 06.02.2020. This could be construed as some type of
typographical error but in view of the fact that from the actual
date the complaint was woefully delayed and from 15.03.2020,
the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Patna High Court was
there condoning the delay in filing the application due to corona
pandemic. It is apparent that wrong dates have been given
deliberately in order to bring the case within the exemption
allowed by the Hon’ble Supeme Court and Hon’ble High Court
during the period of Corona. Moreover while the complainant
states that the accused and complaint were on friendly terms, the
legal notice which has been brought on record would show that
the same was for payment of dues amount of purchase of tractor.
Such a reckless approach in filing the case and such a reckless
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16980 of 2022(7) dt.16-03-2026
3/3
approach in dealing with the case by the learned C.J.M. is
deprecated. The complainant had not gone to the Court with
clean hand and the Court for reasons best known to it did not
have the time or capacity to look into the basic material that
should have been looked into.
5. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the order
dated 14.12.2020 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
East Champaran, Motihari is quashed.
(Ansul, J)
sanjeev/-
U T
Checking your session…