Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The instant misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dt. 11.02.2013 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Communal Riots), Pali in Criminal Complaint Case No. 51/2010, whereby the application filed by the accused under Sec. 203 Cr.P.C. was rejected and the order taking cognizance dt. 16.02.2010 was upheld.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Yogendra Pratap Singh vs. Savitri Pandey & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 605/2012 Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5761/2010) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has referred the issue of maintainability of a pre -mature complaint under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to a larger Bench whilst expressing that the judgment rendered by the earlier Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narsingh Das Tapadia vs. Goverdhan Das Partam & Anr., reported in : (2000) 7 SCC 183 does not correctly state the legal position. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that the petition filed by the petitioners may be accepted looking to the view expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Yogendra Pratap Singh (supra) while giving liberty to the complainant to file a fresh complaint He submits that in view of the Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the delay occasioned in filing the complaint can be condoned by the trial Court. Thus, he prays that while allowing the petition, the complainant be given a liberty to file a fresh complaint in the trial Court with a prayer to condone the delay occasioned in filing the complaint.
(3.) IT is not dispute in the present case that the complaint which was filed by the complainant was premature.;