Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
(i) CRL.M.C. 183/2012 ANSA ARUN CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Nemo.
(i) CRL.M.C. 183/2012 ANSA ARUN CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Nemo.
VERSUS
STATE & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State (ii) CRL.M.C. 184/2012 ANSA ARUN CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Through: Nemo.
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State (ii) CRL.M.C. 184/2012 ANSA ARUN CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Through: Nemo.
VERSUS
STATE & ORS. ..... Respondents
CORAM:
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
/o 02.12.2013 In the above captioned two petitions, restoration of CC NO. 2225/2009 titled as MIS Ansa Arun Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs GMS Real
Estates Pvt. Ltd. and CC No. 2217/2009, titled as MIS Ansa Arun
Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State & ors., both under Section 138 of The
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is sought on identical grounds. Both
·these petitions are against order of 12th August, 2011 upholding dismissal
·ofaforesaid complaints in default.
Notices ofthese petitions were issued to respondents No. 2 to 4 i.e. the accused in the complaints and they are reported to· be served for 16th January, 2013 but none has appeared on their behalf.
Crl. M.C. No. 183/2013 Crl. M.C. No. 184/2013
Page 1 2013:DHC:6785 In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, these two petitions are treated to be appeal against impugned order resulting in acquittal ofrespondent-accused.
The ·complaints in question relate to dishonouring of cheques amounting to ~1,18,00,000/-. Non appearance of petitioner on 14th April, 2010 is stated to be on account of inability to walk and as per petitioner's/complainant's version, counsel was informed about it. On a account of lapse on the part of counsel, petitioner's right to get the
-y.> aforesaid complaints (Annexure-C) in question decided on merits, cannot
;;, be denied as for the negligence on the part of petitioner/complainant, it can be always put to terms.
In view of the aforesaid, impugned order as well as trial court's order dismissing .petitioners' complaints (Annexure-C), are quashed subject to cost of ~25,000/- each to be deposited with the Prime
Minister's ReliefFund within two weeks. Subject to deposit of the cost imposed within the time stipulated and placing its receipt on record within a week thereafter, petitioners' complaint being CC No. 2225/2009
MIS Ansa Arun Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs GMS Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. and
CC No. 2217/2009, titled as MIS Ansa Arun Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
State & ors are ordered to be ·restored for being expeditiously tried in accordance with the law.
The above captioned two petitions are accordingly disposed of.
DECEMBER 02, 2013 r Cr/. M.C. No. 183/2013 Crl. M.C. No. 184/2013
~R)
JUDGE
Page 2 2013:DHC:6785
State
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
/o 02.12.2013 In the above captioned two petitions, restoration of CC NO. 2225/2009 titled as MIS Ansa Arun Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs GMS Real
Estates Pvt. Ltd. and CC No. 2217/2009, titled as MIS Ansa Arun
Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State & ors., both under Section 138 of The
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is sought on identical grounds. Both
·these petitions are against order of 12th August, 2011 upholding dismissal
·ofaforesaid complaints in default.
Notices ofthese petitions were issued to respondents No. 2 to 4 i.e. the accused in the complaints and they are reported to· be served for 16th January, 2013 but none has appeared on their behalf.
Crl. M.C. No. 183/2013 Crl. M.C. No. 184/2013
Page 1 2013:DHC:6785 In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, these two petitions are treated to be appeal against impugned order resulting in acquittal ofrespondent-accused.
The ·complaints in question relate to dishonouring of cheques amounting to ~1,18,00,000/-. Non appearance of petitioner on 14th April, 2010 is stated to be on account of inability to walk and as per petitioner's/complainant's version, counsel was informed about it. On a account of lapse on the part of counsel, petitioner's right to get the
-y.> aforesaid complaints (Annexure-C) in question decided on merits, cannot
;;, be denied as for the negligence on the part of petitioner/complainant, it can be always put to terms.
In view of the aforesaid, impugned order as well as trial court's order dismissing .petitioners' complaints (Annexure-C), are quashed subject to cost of ~25,000/- each to be deposited with the Prime
Minister's ReliefFund within two weeks. Subject to deposit of the cost imposed within the time stipulated and placing its receipt on record within a week thereafter, petitioners' complaint being CC No. 2225/2009
MIS Ansa Arun Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs GMS Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. and
CC No. 2217/2009, titled as MIS Ansa Arun Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
State & ors are ordered to be ·restored for being expeditiously tried in accordance with the law.
The above captioned two petitions are accordingly disposed of.
DECEMBER 02, 2013 r Cr/. M.C. No. 183/2013 Crl. M.C. No. 184/2013
~R)
JUDGE
Page 2 2013:DHC:6785
JUDGMENT