In a recent ruling by the Delhi High Court, a resolution has been reached concerning the delays in the application under Section 145(2) of the NI Act. The Court addressed the issue of repeated applications causing delays and provided clarity on granting further opportunities. This judgment aims to streamline the complaint cases and ensure efficient proceedings. #DelhiHighCourt #LegalJudgment #NIAct #DelayResolution
Arguments
- The learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the delay in filing an application under Section 145(2) of the NI Act was due to reasons beyond their control.
- The subsequent actions of filing applications under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 145(2) of the NI Act were based on advice from their former counsel.
- The petitioners should not suffer due to incorrect advice provided by their counsel.
- Initially, the petitioners did not file an application under Section 145(2) of the NI Act when the notice was framed.
- The conduct of the petitioners during the present proceedings has been dilatory.
- An application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. was declined by the Trial Court but further opportunity was given which the petitioners failed to utilize.
- Another application under Section 145(2) of the NI Act was also not moved by the petitioners.
- The petitions have been filed after a significant delay from the last known date of hearing.
Analysis
- The petitioners caused delays by filing repeated applications that were not maintainable.
- The Trial Court erred in not granting further time for the petitioners to file the application under Section 145(2) of the NI Act.
- The Trial Court could have granted one further opportunity for the petitioners to file the application.
Decision
- The Impugned Orders are set aside.
- If the respective respondent no.2 is available on the next court date, petitioners can cross-examine without adjournment.
- Failure to cross-examine on said date will result in closing the opportunity.
- No unwarranted adjournments will be granted to petitioners henceforth.
- The Trial Court should aim to resolve the complaint cases within six months of the first listing post this judgment.
- Cost of Rs. 1,20,000/- to be paid collectively to the complainant before the next court hearing.
- If the complainant is present on the next court date, petitioners must cross-examine without seeking adjournment.
Case Title: MRS. DEEPA TANEJA Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. (2024:DHC:4093)
Case Number: CRL.M.C.-1549/2022
