SC relaxations during pandemic not for protecting accused: HC

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, May 3

In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the Supreme Court orders passed in a suo motu case on granting relaxations in the limitation period during the pandemic was for the benefit of the complainant in a cheque bounce case and not for the accused. The Bench also made it clear that the Supreme Court orders were not issued to protect the accused from being prosecuted during the period.

Cheque bounce case

• The Bench said limitation period was for benefit of complainant in a cheque bounce case
• Justice Bahl asserted none of the orders passed by the SC put an embargo upon the complainant to institute the complaint under Section 138
• Justice Bahl added accepting the argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner would defeat the Act’s object

The ruling by Justice Vikas Bahl came in a case where the accused contended the period from March 15, 2020, to February 28, 2022, stood excluded for computing the period prescribed for instituting the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

As such, the complaint filed on January 21, 2021, within the excluded period, was premature. It deserved to be set aside as its cognisance taken during the period was illegal and against the orders passed by the Supreme Court, the accused had added.

Justice Bahl asserted the moot point for consideration before the court was whether the orders passed by the Supreme Court were for the complainant’s benefit to grant additional time to institute the proceedings he was unable to, or did not wish to, institute following the pandemic.

Justice Bahl added it was also to be considered whether the Apex Court orders were issued to protect the accused from being prosecuted for the period, suspending in the process the remedy available to the complainant and to “estop” him from instituting the complaint under Section 138 during the phase.

In his 30-page order, Justice Bahl asserted that none of the orders passed by the Supreme Court put an embargo upon the complainant to institute the complaint under Section 138. The orders were for the benefit of the complainant, who could not institute the complaint due to the pandemic. It could not be construed to the disadvantage of the litigants vigilant to institute their complaints in accordance with the provisions of the Act in spite of the pandemic.

Justice Bahl added accepting the argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner would defeat the Act’s object, which was to promote and inculcate faith in the banking system’s efficacy and to discourage people from dishonouring their commitments implicit when they paid their dues through a cheque.

“Keeping in view the facts and circumstances and also the law laid down by the Supreme Court, this court is of the view that the argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the complaint as instituted on October 21, 2020, was premature is meritless and deserves to be rejected,” Justice Bahl concluded.