Full Text
Translation output
M
$-11-12 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.L.P.507/2014
NARAIN SINGH
Petitioner
Through: Ms.Rieha Singh,Advoeate
$-11-12 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.L.P.507/2014
NARAIN SINGH
Petitioner
Through: Ms.Rieha Singh,Advoeate
VERSUS
SMT KAMLESH
Respondent
Through:
Respondent
Through:
CRL.L.P.509/2014
NARAIN SINGH
Petitioner
Through: Ms.Rieha Singh,Advoeate
NARAIN SINGH
Petitioner
Through: Ms.Rieha Singh,Advoeate
VERSUS
RAJ KUMAR
Respondent
Through:
Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
25.03.2015 Despite pass over, none has appeared for the respondent. No vakalatnama or reply has been filed by the respondent despite opportunity.
Considering the fact that the complaint ofthe petitioner under Section 138
2015:DHC:10973 ofthe Negotiable Instruments Act is dismissed for non prosecution,leave is granted.
.121 CRL A Nos 72015 & /2015 Letthe appeals be registered and numbered.
The present appeals are directed against the order dated 03.03.2014, whereby the complaint preferred by the appellant under Section 138 ofthe
Act was dismissed in default under Section 256 Cr PC on account of non appearance ofthe complainant or the counsel. The order records that it was apparent on the record that the complainant is not diligent in prosecuting his case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent had assured the complainant that the dispute would be settled by making payment of the outstanding amount in front of a common acquaintance named Rajjo. However, the respondent did not make the settlement. On account of the said assurance, the appellant did not appear on three dates before the learned Magistrate, which led to the passing of the impugned order.
Since there is no contest to these averments on behalf of the respondent, there is no reason not to accept the same. However, in any event,the appellant is obliged to appear before the Courtsince the complaint was pending. Even if the complainant desired that the complaint be not proceeded with, the complainant should have appeared to apprise the court ofthe settlementtalks and on that ground sought deferment ofthe case.
Since the complaint has not been adjudicated on merits,this Court is ofthe opinion that the same should be so adjudicated so as to prevent the
A appellant from suffering irreparable loss and injury and failure ofjustice.
Accordingly,the complaint is restored to its original number subject to the complainant depositing costs of Rs.1,000/- to be paid to the Delhi High
Court Legal Services Authority.
The parties shall appear before the learned Magistrate on 27.04.2015.
VIPIN SANGHI,J MARCH 25,2015 sr \ -
25.03.2015 Despite pass over, none has appeared for the respondent. No vakalatnama or reply has been filed by the respondent despite opportunity.
Considering the fact that the complaint ofthe petitioner under Section 138
2015:DHC:10973 ofthe Negotiable Instruments Act is dismissed for non prosecution,leave is granted.
.121 CRL A Nos 72015 & /2015 Letthe appeals be registered and numbered.
The present appeals are directed against the order dated 03.03.2014, whereby the complaint preferred by the appellant under Section 138 ofthe
Act was dismissed in default under Section 256 Cr PC on account of non appearance ofthe complainant or the counsel. The order records that it was apparent on the record that the complainant is not diligent in prosecuting his case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent had assured the complainant that the dispute would be settled by making payment of the outstanding amount in front of a common acquaintance named Rajjo. However, the respondent did not make the settlement. On account of the said assurance, the appellant did not appear on three dates before the learned Magistrate, which led to the passing of the impugned order.
Since there is no contest to these averments on behalf of the respondent, there is no reason not to accept the same. However, in any event,the appellant is obliged to appear before the Courtsince the complaint was pending. Even if the complainant desired that the complaint be not proceeded with, the complainant should have appeared to apprise the court ofthe settlementtalks and on that ground sought deferment ofthe case.
Since the complaint has not been adjudicated on merits,this Court is ofthe opinion that the same should be so adjudicated so as to prevent the
A appellant from suffering irreparable loss and injury and failure ofjustice.
Accordingly,the complaint is restored to its original number subject to the complainant depositing costs of Rs.1,000/- to be paid to the Delhi High
Court Legal Services Authority.
The parties shall appear before the learned Magistrate on 27.04.2015.
VIPIN SANGHI,J MARCH 25,2015 sr \ -
JUDGMENT