P.K. Lohra, J. - (1.) Challenge to impugned order dated 16th of August, 2016 passed by Special Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases), No.5, Jodhpur Metropolitan (for short, 'learned trial Court') at the behest of accused-petitioner is laid by invoking inherent powers of this Court.
(2.) The factual matrix giving rise to this petition are that respondent-complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (for short, 'Act), inter-alia, on the ground that a cheque bearing No. 033850 dated 21st of December 2011 for a sum of Rs.1,25,000, given by petitioner to respondent-complainant is dishonored by the Bank with a memo showing insufficiency of funds in the Bank account of the petitioner. Later on, the respondent-complainant served a notice on the petitioner within the stipulated period. The complaint is filed 61 days beyond the period of limitation. For seeking condonation of delay, the respondent-complainant submitted an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The learned trial Court upon consideration of the application for condonation of delay, while resorting to Section 142 of the Act, by the order impugned, condoned the delay and took cognizance against the petitioner for the aforesaid offence.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Prem Dayal Bohra, submits that respondent-complainant has not shown any sufficient cause for condonation of delay yet the learned trial Court has condoned the delay and taken cognizance against the petitioner which is a clear case of abuse of the process of the Court. Learned counsel would contend that although discretion is conferred on a Court to condone delay in laying complaint but the said discretion is required to be exercised judiciously and sans sufficient cause for delay, delay is not liable to be condoned. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that order impugned is clearly vitiated in law.;