Full Text
Translation output
$-8.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.L.P.305/2014 & CRL MA 7033/2014
SURINDER KUMAR ARORA Petitioner
Through: Mr.R.S. Chaggar,Advocate
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.L.P.305/2014 & CRL MA 7033/2014
SURINDER KUMAR ARORA Petitioner
Through: Mr.R.S. Chaggar,Advocate
VERSUS
BALBIR SINGH SOLANKI & ANR.
Respondent
Through: Mr.Girish Gaur,Advocate
Respondent
Through: Mr.Girish Gaur,Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
06.05.2015 Arguments heard. Leave granted.
CRLA No...u'di..'^/2015 Letthe appeal be registered and numbered.
With the consent of parties, I have heard learned counsels for the parties and proceed to dispose ofthe appeal. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 12.12.2013 passed by the learned Magistrate, whereby the appellant's complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act has been disposed ofand the respondent/accused has been acquitted. A perusal ofthe impugned order shows that none appeared for the complainant, and the complainant was also not present when the case was taken up at 12:30 p.m. It also appears that the complainant had not led any
2015:DHC:10975 evidence and the previous costs imposed were also not paid. Consequently,. the complainant's evidence was closed and since there was no evidence on record in support ofthe complaint,the accused was acquitted.
The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was suffering from viral fever on the said date and the counsel was busy in another court. The exemption application in respect of the complainant had been prepared and had also been moved. However, the same was not entertained. Counsel submits that the appellant was ready and willing to deposit the costs of Rs.3,000/- earlier imposed on 12.12.2013.
However, the same could not be paid since the counsel was not present when the complaint was taken up and disposed of.
Though,a dispute is sought to be raised with regard to the address of the appellant,in my view,the same is not ofany relevance. The Us between the parties should be adjudicated on merits and not on mere technicalities.In the present case, the trial court record shows that the exemption application was indeed moved on the same day, but by 2:00 p.m. when the complaint had been rejected and the respondent was acquitted. Therefore,it cannot be said that the complainant was not interested in pursuing the complaint. At the same time, there was a lapse on the part of the complainant and his counsel, and the inconvenience caused to the respondent deserves to be compensated.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed subject to costs of Rs.10,000/- over and above the costs ofRs.3,000/- imposed by the trial court. The said costs shall be paid before the learned Magistrate on the next date.
The complaint stands restored to its original number. The parties shall appear before the learned Magistrate on 25.05.2015. It is made clear that no further indulgence shall be sought by the appellant or granted by the trial court.
The appeal stands disposed of.
VIPIN SANGHI,J MAY 06,2015 sr :^'k
06.05.2015 Arguments heard. Leave granted.
CRLA No...u'di..'^/2015 Letthe appeal be registered and numbered.
With the consent of parties, I have heard learned counsels for the parties and proceed to dispose ofthe appeal. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 12.12.2013 passed by the learned Magistrate, whereby the appellant's complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act has been disposed ofand the respondent/accused has been acquitted. A perusal ofthe impugned order shows that none appeared for the complainant, and the complainant was also not present when the case was taken up at 12:30 p.m. It also appears that the complainant had not led any
2015:DHC:10975 evidence and the previous costs imposed were also not paid. Consequently,. the complainant's evidence was closed and since there was no evidence on record in support ofthe complaint,the accused was acquitted.
The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was suffering from viral fever on the said date and the counsel was busy in another court. The exemption application in respect of the complainant had been prepared and had also been moved. However, the same was not entertained. Counsel submits that the appellant was ready and willing to deposit the costs of Rs.3,000/- earlier imposed on 12.12.2013.
However, the same could not be paid since the counsel was not present when the complaint was taken up and disposed of.
Though,a dispute is sought to be raised with regard to the address of the appellant,in my view,the same is not ofany relevance. The Us between the parties should be adjudicated on merits and not on mere technicalities.In the present case, the trial court record shows that the exemption application was indeed moved on the same day, but by 2:00 p.m. when the complaint had been rejected and the respondent was acquitted. Therefore,it cannot be said that the complainant was not interested in pursuing the complaint. At the same time, there was a lapse on the part of the complainant and his counsel, and the inconvenience caused to the respondent deserves to be compensated.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed subject to costs of Rs.10,000/- over and above the costs ofRs.3,000/- imposed by the trial court. The said costs shall be paid before the learned Magistrate on the next date.
The complaint stands restored to its original number. The parties shall appear before the learned Magistrate on 25.05.2015. It is made clear that no further indulgence shall be sought by the appellant or granted by the trial court.
The appeal stands disposed of.
VIPIN SANGHI,J MAY 06,2015 sr :^'k
JUDGMENT