ASHOK KUMAR PRAJAPATI ALIAS ASHOK PRAJAPATI vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Court
Jharkhand High Court



( 2026:JHHC:12708 )


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.2974 of 2024
------
Ashok Kumar Prajapati, aged about 58 years, S/o Late Bhola Nath
Prajapati, Resident of-Village-Jarba, P.O.-Jarba, P.S.-Charhi, District-
Hazaribagh, (Jharkhand).
… Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Jahana Khatoon, wife of Akil Akhtar, Resident of Ghato 12
Number Chowk, Ghato Tand, P.O.-Ghato Tand, P.S.-Mandu, O.P.-
West Bokaro Ghato Tand, District-Ramgarh, Jharkhand.
…
Opposite Parties

------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Awnish Shankar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Praful Jojo, Addl.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Vishal Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Shubham Kumar, Advocate
: Ms. Ishani Singh, Advocate
------
P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 with the
prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding including the
st
order dated 14.05.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1 Class,
Ramgarh in connection with Complaint Case No.224 of 2020 whereby and
where under the learned Court below explained the substance of
accusation under Section 138 of NI Act to the petitioner.
1
Cr. M.P. No.2974 of 2024



( 2026:JHHC:12708 )



3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner is the accused person
of Complaint Case No.224 of 2020. It is the admitted case of the
complainant that the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the
complainant upon being dishonored, the complainant issued a legal
notice to the petitioner demanding payment of the cheque amount on
19.05.2020. The said notice was received by the petitioner on 04.06.2020,
but without waiting for 15 days period from that date, the complainant
filed complaint case on 18.06.2020, hence, the learned Judicial Magistrate-
st
1 Class, Ramgarh on the basis of the complaint and the material available
in the record passed summoning order against the petitioner for having
committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Subodh S. Salaskar vs. Jay
Prakash M. Shah & Another reported in [2009 (1) East Cr C 233 (SC)] and
submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India relied upon its
judgment in the case of Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. and Another vs.
Ashoka Alloy Steel Ltd. and Others reported in (2006) 9 SCC 340 and in
the facts of that case, when the notice demanding payment of the cheque
amount was served on the accused on 10.01.1997, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India has observed that 15 days’ time for making payment
expired on 25.01.1997, so the cause of action to file the complaint accrued
on 26.01.1997 and went on to submit that since admittedly in this case, the
notice was served upon the petitioner on 04.06.2020, the 15 days’ time for
making payment expired on 19.06.2020 and thus the cause of action to file
2
Cr. M.P. No.2974 of 2024



( 2026:JHHC:12708 )


the complaint accrued on 20.06.2020, but the complaint having been filed
prior to that on 18.6.2020 in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Yogendra Pratap Singh vs. Savitri Pandey &
Another reported in (2014) 12 SCR 26 , paragraph-37 of which reads as
under:-
“37. A complaint filed before the expiry of 15 days from
the date on which notice has been served on drawer/accused
cannot be said to disclose the cause of action in terms of clause (c)
of the proviso to Section 138 and upon such complaint which does
not disclose the cause of action the court is not competent to take
cognizance. A conjoint reading of Section 138, which defines as
to when and under what circumstances an offence can be said to
have been committed, with Section 142(b) of the NI Act, that
reiterates the position of the point of time when the cause of
action has arisen, leaves no manner of doubt that no offence can
be said to have been committed unless and until the period of 15
days, as prescribed under clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138,
has, in fact, elapsed. Therefore, a court is barred in law from
taking cognizance of such complaint. It is not open to the court to
take cognizance of such a complaint merely because on the date of
consideration or taking cognizance thereof a period of 15 days
from the date on which the notice has been served on the
drawer/accused has elapsed. We have no doubt that all the five
essential features of Section 138 of the NI Act, as noted in the
judgment of this Court in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. [Kusum
Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd., (2000) 2
SCC 745 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 546 : AIR 2000 SC 954] and which
we have approved, must be satisfied for a complaint to be filed
under Section 138. If the period prescribed in clause (c) of the
proviso to Section 138 has not expired, there is no commission of
an offence nor accrual of cause of action for filing of complaint
under Section 138 of the NI Act.”(emphasis supplied)

the learned Court below having taken cognizance of the offences on a
complaint which was premature; the same is liable to be quashed and set
aside and the consequential order dated 14.05.2025 whereby and
st
whereunder the learned Judicial Magistrate-1 Class, Ramgarh has
3
Cr. M.P. No.2974 of 2024



( 2026:JHHC:12708 )


explained the substance of accusation to the petitioner be also quashed
and set aside.
5. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel
for the opposite party No.2 do not dispute the factual aspect or the law as
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but submits that since
it was a bona fide mistake on the part of the opposite party no.2, hence,
the opposite party may be given the liberty to file a fresh complaint.
6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after
carefully going through the materials available in the record, this Court
has no hesitation in holding that since the notice was served upon the
petitioner admittedly on 04.06.2020, the 15 days’ time for making payment
expired on 19.06.2020 and cause of action to file the complaint accrued on
20.06.2020, but the complaint having been filed prior to that on 18.06.2020,
st
certainly, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1 Class, Ramgarh has
committed a grave illegality by taking cognizance of the offence on a
prematurely filed complaint, hence, this Court is of the considered view
that the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner
will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the
entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 14.05.2025 passed by
st
learned Judicial Magistrate-1 Class, Ramgarh in connection with
Complaint Case No.224 of 2020, be quashed and set aside.
7. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order
st
dated 14.05.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1 Class, Ramgarh
4
Cr. M.P. No.2974 of 2024



( 2026:JHHC:12708 )


in connection with Complaint Case No.224 of 2020, is quashed and set
aside qua the petitioner only.
8. In the result, this Cr.M.P., stands allowed.
9. The opposite party no.2 is at liberty to file any fresh complaint if the
same is maintainable in law.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J )
.
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
th
Dated the 29 of April, 2026
AFR/ Abhiraj

Uploaded on 06/05/2026


5
Cr. M.P. No.2974 of 2024