IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15205 of 2009 Gayetri Prasad Agrawal, son of Late Madan Mohan Lal Agrawal, resident of Sardar Ballabh Bhai Patel Road, PS Kotwali, District Gaya – Petitioner. Vs. 1. The State of Bihar, 2. Birendra Kumar Singh, son of Late Raghu Nandan Singh, resident of Hotel Shish Mahal River Side Road, PS Kotwali, District Gaya – Opp. Parties. 3 4.11.2009 This application has been filed for modification of the order, dated 17.1.2007 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 25879 of 2006 by which the said quashing application was disposed of by this court on the sole ground that the complaint petition had been filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act beyond the statutory period of one month as provided under section 142 of the Act. It has been recorded in the order that notice was received on 7.3.2002 and the complaint petition was filed on 18.5.2002. On perusal of the file I find that the complaint petition is, dated 18.5.2002 which has been signed by Rajesh Nayan Kumar, counsel who presented the complaint petition. In this case notice was issued and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused petitioner concede that in fact the complaint was filed on 5.4.2002. While conceding this point, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the complaint was filed on 5.4.2002 and signed by the counsel on 5.4.2002 itself which is apparent from the order, dated 5.4.2002 which is annexed in the modification petition. It appears that on 8.4.2002 the court had ordered that the complainant should file six copies of the complaint petition as it was 2 to be sent to the Kotwali police station for registration of a case under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the next date fixed was 2.5.2002. On 18.5.2002, six copies of the complaint petition was filed. However,, counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant put his signature on six extra copies on 18.5.2002 which in fact has created the confusion. The accused petitioner took a certified copy of the F.I.R. from the police station and, thus, got a copy of the complaint petition, dated 18.5.2002 and filed it in the court below. Similarly, it was filed in this court under the bona fide believe that the complaint was filed on 18.5.2002. For the reasons aforesaid this court proceeded to treat the date of filing of the complaint petition as 18.5.2002. The result is that the entire order of this court based on the fact that the complaint was filed beyond the statutory period would have to be recalled as it is based on wrong fact and would in fact cause great injustice to the complainant. I, therefore, recall the order, dated 17.1.2007 in the facts stated aforesaid under changed and compelling circumstances. This application is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations. List Criminal Misc. No. 25879/2005 for admission on 11.11.2009. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)