DEVINDER PURI AND C S ORGANIC CHEM OILS LIMITED Vs. (SIC) P SOLVEX LIMITED THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR PAWAN KUMAR SINGLA, AUTHORISED SIGNATORY/AGENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As per the law laid down by the Apex Court in Narsingh Dass Tapadia v. Goverdhan Dass partani and Anr., 2000 (2) Civil Court Cases 408, a pre mature complaint can either await maturity or be returned to the complainant for filing later, but the complaint cannot be dismissed for the reason that it was presented at an earlier date and it also does not confer any right upon the accused to absolve himself from the criminal liability for the offence committed. Further more, it was held that a complaint can be said to be instituted in Court, which the Court takes cognizance of the offence alleged therein. According to the counsel, a statutory notice in this case was received by the petitioner on October 27, 1997 and the complaint was filed on November 11, 1997 i.e. on 14th day, therefore, submission was that it was pre-mature by a day.

(2.) Counsel for the respondents has referred to Patel Dineshkumar Shivram Somdas v. Patel Keshavlal Mohan Lal 2000 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 127 (a Full Bench decision of the Gujarat High Court), in support of his contention that a pre-mature complaint must be dismissed, but in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Narsingh Dass's Case (Supra), a pre mature complaint does not necessarily have to be dismissed. Law only states that no cognizance shall be taken of a pre mature complaint.

(3.) In the present case, though the complaint was filed on November 11, 1997, cognizance was taken on August 25, 1998. There is no legal infirmity calling for interference by this Court in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This petition is dismissed. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court now on February 01, 2003, for further proceedings.