YOGENDRA PRATAP SINGH Vs. SAVITRI PANDEY
LAWS(SC)-2014-9-63
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
September 19,2014
YOGENDRA PRATAP SINGH
Appellant
VERSUS
SAVITRI PANDEY
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
K.R. INDIRA V. DR. G. ADINARAYANA [REFERRED TO]KUSUM INGOTS AND ALLOYS LIMITED VS. PENNAR PETERSON SECURITIES LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
NARSINGH DAS TAPADIA VS. GOVERDHAN DAS PARTANI [OVERRULED]
SARAV INVESTMENT AND FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS PVT LTD VS. LLYODS REGISTER OF SHIPPING INDIAN OFFICE STAFF PROVIDENT FUND [OVERRULED]
ZENITH FASHION MAKERS PVT LTD VS. ULTIMATE FASHION MAKERS LTD [OVERRULED]
HEM LATA GUPTA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [OVERRULED]
GANGA RAM SINGH VS. STATE OF UP [OVERRULED]
HARPREET HOSIERY REHARI VS. NITU MAHAJAN [REFERRED TO]
YUNUS KHAN VS. MAZHAR KHAN [OVERRULED]
N VENKATA SIVARAM PRASAD VS. RAJESWARI CONSTRUCTIONS [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK HEGDE VS. JATHIN V ATTAWAN [REFERRED TO]
NIRANJAN SAHOO VS. UTKAL SANITARY BBSR [REFERRED TO]
ARUN HEGDE VS. M J SHETTY [OVERRULED]
BAPULAL B KACCHI VS. KRUPACHAND JAIN [OVERRULED]
SANDIP GUHA VS. SAKTIPADA GHOSH [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH NEMKUMAR PORWAL VS. NARAYAN DHONDU JOGLEKAR [REFERRED TO]
BOOPALAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA AGARWAL VS. GOPI RAM MAHAJAN [OVERRULED]
S. JANAK SINGH VS. PRITPAL SINGH [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
AREEPLAVAN FINANCIERS THODUPUZHA VS. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [LAWS(KER)-2020-3-245] [REFERRED TO]ASHFAQUE AHMAD VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2019-9-79] [REFERRED TO]
POOJAN TRADING COMPANY VS. BETUL OILS AND FLOORS LTD [LAWS(MPH)-2017-6-186] [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHAND VS. RAM NATH [LAWS(P&H)-2023-1-209] [REFERRED TO]
JAI PRAKASH GOYAL VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2024-3-44] [REFERRED TO]
SUNSTAR SEED PVT LTD VS. YERUVA ARLA REDDY [LAWS(APH)-2022-4-76] [REFERRED TO]
IBRAHIM AHMED VALLI PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-4-65] [REFERRED TO]
KISHOR KUMAR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2016-4-422] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVANI TYAGI VS. STATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-4-241] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDER VS. YOGENDER TYAGI [LAWS(DLH)-2018-9-256] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ KUMAR GOYAL AND ORS. VS. VIKAS GUPTA AND ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2015-9-8] [REFERRED TO]
VIMLA JHA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2018-9-46] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD. YAHYA FAROOQUI @ FIROZ FAROOQUI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-3-29] [REFERRED TO]
RAMBHAU TULSIRAM BHUSARI VS. ASSANAND DHANUMAL VENSIANI [LAWS(BOM)-2019-10-168] [REFERRED TO]
AFROJKHAN VS. MANDODARA W/O MADHAVRAO KENDRE [LAWS(BOM)-2019-12-164] [REFERRED TO]
RAM BABU VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-403] [REFERRED TO]
OM NARAYAN KUSHWAHA VS. STATE OF U P AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2016-3-258] [REFERRED]
PAWAN KUMAR MISHRA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-5-370] [REFERRED TO]
UDAIN SENGAR VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-1-587] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR SINGHAL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-8-52] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. S.B.E.E. CABLES (INDIA) LED. VS. M/S. BILIGIRI ENTERPRISES [LAWS(KAR)-2024-2-67] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. KAMAL DIXIT @ ARPNA BARTARIA @ KAMMO VS. DHARMENDRA [LAWS(MPH)-2017-1-104] [REFERRED TO]
R. S. PRASAD VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2021-6-54] [REFERRED TO]
RENU DEVI VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2019-1-196] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL, VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2020-3-38] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL CHANDRA, VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2020-6-36] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH CHATURVEDI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-11-22] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLESH CHAUHAN VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2017-1-87] [REFERRED TO]
FINA DASS VS. VINOD KUMAR [LAWS(HPH)-2017-5-105] [REFERRED TO]
RADHAMANI INDIA LIMITED VS. BASUKINATH FOOD PROCESSORS LIMITED [LAWS(CAL)-2022-6-30] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH KUMAR VS. STATE & ANR [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-11-3] [REFERRED TO]
NARAHARI BARIK VS. SAMAPTI PATTANAYAK AND ORS [LAWS(ORI)-2016-6-53] [REFERRED TO]
VIKRAM JOSHI VS. RAJ TRADING COMPANY [LAWS(P&H)-2019-12-46] [REFERRED TO]
J MURALI VS. P RAVICHANDRAN [LAWS(MAD)-2015-9-456] [REFERRED]
VISHWANATH CHAUDHARY VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2017-4-10] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH KUMAR HEMBRAM VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2019-2-125] [REFERRED TO]
S G EXPORTS VS. STATE OF U P AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2018-4-287] [REFERRED TO]
SUNDER DAS ROHRA VS. ANIL MISHRA [LAWS(CHH)-2022-11-7] [REFERRED TO]
SOURAV GHOSH CHOUDHURY VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2022-9-36] [REFERRED TO]
ARUP CHATTERJEE VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2022-7-95] [REFERRED TO]
GHULAM AHMAD RATHER VS. FAROOQ AHMAD PARRAY [LAWS(J&K)-2021-5-36] [REFERRED TO]
A S RATHORE VS. VIMAL JAIN [LAWS(DLH)-2018-11-172] [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDRANATH GE MEDICAL ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. P RAJA RAO [LAWS(MAD)-2020-6-383] [REFERRED TO]
NISHANT KHANDELWAL AND OTHERS VS. LALIT BHARDWAJ AND ANOTHER [LAWS(J&K)-2018-4-64] [REFERRED TO]
MANJIT SINGH VS. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD [LAWS(P&H)-2022-4-1] [REFERRED TO]
RAVI SHANKAR GUPTA VS. BABULAL DWIVEDI [LAWS(MPH)-2019-6-30] [REFERRED TO]
DEVDATT BHARADWAJ VS. SANTOSH VERMA [LAWS(MPH)-2015-11-2] [REFERRED TO]
MD. NASIM ANSARI VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2021-7-15] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR PRASAD VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2016-5-239] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVARAJU K. R. VS. M.K.CHETANGOWDA [LAWS(KAR)-2019-1-493] [REFERRED TO]
YUVRAJ AGRO FOODS PVT LTD AND OTHERS VS. MANGAT RAM PAWAN KUMAR [LAWS(P&H)-2019-7-138] [REFERRED TO]
N THIRUGNANASAMBANDAM VS. E ANANTHI [LAWS(MAD)-2017-8-239] [REFERRED TO]
SUDESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2024-3-35] [REFERRED TO]
ANUP SINGH VS. SARDAR JOGINDER SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2020-1-400] [REFERRED TO]
SHANKAR KUMAR @ SHANKAR SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2018-2-313] [REFERRED TO]
B.VIJAYALAKSHMI VS. R.AMARAVATHI [LAWS(MAD)-2020-6-415] [REFERRED TO]
HARYANA STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LTD VS. HANUMAN RICE MILL [LAWS(P&H)-2022-11-135] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLENNDRA MAHESHWARI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-2-257] [REFERRED TO]
ABHISHEK KUMAR VS. STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2016-5-224] [REFERRED TO]
SOMISETTY PURUSHOTHAM KUMAR VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2024-1-157] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK S/O. SHIVARUDRAPPA DALAGAR VS. PRAKASH S/O. MURIGEPPA SAVANUR [LAWS(KAR)-2021-9-43] [REFERRED TO]
SUMATI KACHHAP VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2022-10-2] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA KANT KUSHWAHA VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2021-1-54] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)In the order of 03.04.2012, a two-Judge Bench of this Court granted leave in SLP (Crl.) No.5761 of 2010. The Court formulated the following two questions for consideration:
(i) Can cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 be taken on the basis of a complaint filed before the expiry of the period of 15 days stipulated in the notice required to be served upon the drawer of the cheque in terms of Section 138 (c) of the Act aforementioned And,
(ii) If answer to question No.1 is in the negative, can the complainant be permitted to present the complaint again notwithstanding the fact that the period of one month stipulated under Section 142 (b) for the filing of such a complaint has expired
(2.)The two-Judge Bench in that order noticed Section 138 and Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("NI Act") and also referred to the two decisions of this Court, namely, (1) Narsingh Das Tapadia v. Goverdhan Das Partani and Anr., 2000 7 SCC 183] and (2) Sarav Investment & Financial Consultancy Private Limited and Anr. v. Llyods Register of Shipping Indian Office Staff Provident Fund and Anr., 2007 14 SCC 753]. The Bench also noticed the judgments of High Courts of Calcutta, Orissa, Bombay, Punjab and Haryana, Andhra Pradesh, Allahabad, Gauhati, Rajasthan, Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Madras, Jammu and Kashmir and Karnataka and observed that judicial opinion on the first question was split among the High Courts in the country and so also the two decisions of this Court in Narsingh Das Tapadia1 and Sarav Investment & Financial Consultancy2. Even amongst the two High Courts, namely, Jammu and Kashmir and Karnataka, the Bench noticed that the decisions on the first question were not uniform. It was felt by the two-Judge Bench that the conflict in the judicial pronouncements needed to be resolved authoritatively and, accordingly, referred the above two questions for consideration by a three- Judge Bench of this Court.
(3.)This is how the matter has been placed before us.
(i) Can cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 be taken on the basis of a complaint filed before the expiry of the period of 15 days stipulated in the notice required to be served upon the drawer of the cheque in terms of Section 138 (c) of the Act aforementioned And,
(ii) If answer to question No.1 is in the negative, can the complainant be permitted to present the complaint again notwithstanding the fact that the period of one month stipulated under Section 142 (b) for the filing of such a complaint has expired
(2.)The two-Judge Bench in that order noticed Section 138 and Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("NI Act") and also referred to the two decisions of this Court, namely, (1) Narsingh Das Tapadia v. Goverdhan Das Partani and Anr., 2000 7 SCC 183] and (2) Sarav Investment & Financial Consultancy Private Limited and Anr. v. Llyods Register of Shipping Indian Office Staff Provident Fund and Anr., 2007 14 SCC 753]. The Bench also noticed the judgments of High Courts of Calcutta, Orissa, Bombay, Punjab and Haryana, Andhra Pradesh, Allahabad, Gauhati, Rajasthan, Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Madras, Jammu and Kashmir and Karnataka and observed that judicial opinion on the first question was split among the High Courts in the country and so also the two decisions of this Court in Narsingh Das Tapadia1 and Sarav Investment & Financial Consultancy2. Even amongst the two High Courts, namely, Jammu and Kashmir and Karnataka, the Bench noticed that the decisions on the first question were not uniform. It was felt by the two-Judge Bench that the conflict in the judicial pronouncements needed to be resolved authoritatively and, accordingly, referred the above two questions for consideration by a three- Judge Bench of this Court.
(3.)This is how the matter has been placed before us.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.