Full Text
Translation output
"•'Nj
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.L.P. 223/2013
MANJU ENTERPRISES (?) LTD. Petitioner
Through : Ms.Nivedita H.S.Bhaskar, Advocate.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.L.P. 223/2013
MANJU ENTERPRISES (?) LTD. Petitioner
Through : Ms.Nivedita H.S.Bhaskar, Advocate.
VERSUS
VARAD TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.& ANR Respondents
Through: None.
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
11.09.2013 The petitioner seeks leave to file appeal against the acquittal of the respondent. Perusal of the Trial Court record reveals that the respondent did not put appearance and the proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were initiated. Under these circumstances, notice of the leave petition to the respondent is not required as he never put appearance during pendency of the proceedings under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. For the reasons mentioned in the leave petition, petitioner is permitted to file appeal against the acquittal order.
Leave petition is allowed.
CRL.A. 118 i /2013 (to be numbered)
With the consent of the appellant, the appeal is heard for final disposal today itself
11.09.2013 The petitioner seeks leave to file appeal against the acquittal of the respondent. Perusal of the Trial Court record reveals that the respondent did not put appearance and the proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were initiated. Under these circumstances, notice of the leave petition to the respondent is not required as he never put appearance during pendency of the proceedings under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. For the reasons mentioned in the leave petition, petitioner is permitted to file appeal against the acquittal order.
Leave petition is allowed.
CRL.A. 118 i /2013 (to be numbered)
With the consent of the appellant, the appeal is heard for final disposal today itself
CRL.L.P. 223/2013 page 1 of3
2013:DHC:8361 The appellant initiated proceedings under Section 138 Negotiable
Instruments Act and filed complaint case against the respondent on
15.07.2006. Cognizance was taken on 11.10.2006 and respondent was summoned for appearance on 19.04.2007. It transpired that thereafter processes were issued time and again but the respondent could not be served. NBWs were issued to procure the presence of the respondent on
11.03.2010. These were received unexecuted. Wife of the respondent was informed about the proceedings as recorded in the order-sheet dated
23.07.2011. Proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were initiated on
07.10.2011. However, it could not be executed. On 05.02.2013, none appeared on behalf of the complainant/ appellant and the complaint case dismissed for non-prosecution.
The respondent did not put appearance despite various processes including coercive process issued time and again. On 05.02.2013, no effective proceedings were to be conducted and the presence of the complainant was not necessary. The Trial Court was to ascertain whether process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was executed or not. The appellant has given cogent reasons in the application for unintentional absence on that day. The appellant had pursued the complaint case diligently. Forone ortwo defaults for non-appearance when no effective proceedings were to be conducted in his presence and his assistance was not required, in my view, the impugned order dismissing the complaint for non-prosecution isrequired to be set aside. Inthe interest ofjustice and to enable the appellant to get the case decided on merits, the complaint case dismissed in default for non- prosecution is ordered toberestored inits original number. The appellant
CRL.L,P. 223/2013 p(ige2of3 s shall be vigilant to pursue its case before the Trial Court.
The appeal is accepted. Trial Court record be sent back with the copy of the order. The appellant shall appear before the Trial Court on 25*
September, 2013 and Trial Court shall proceed with the complaint case as per law.
§fF:GARG,J SEPTEMBER 11,2013/tr
2013:DHC:8361 The appellant initiated proceedings under Section 138 Negotiable
Instruments Act and filed complaint case against the respondent on
15.07.2006. Cognizance was taken on 11.10.2006 and respondent was summoned for appearance on 19.04.2007. It transpired that thereafter processes were issued time and again but the respondent could not be served. NBWs were issued to procure the presence of the respondent on
11.03.2010. These were received unexecuted. Wife of the respondent was informed about the proceedings as recorded in the order-sheet dated
23.07.2011. Proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were initiated on
07.10.2011. However, it could not be executed. On 05.02.2013, none appeared on behalf of the complainant/ appellant and the complaint case dismissed for non-prosecution.
The respondent did not put appearance despite various processes including coercive process issued time and again. On 05.02.2013, no effective proceedings were to be conducted and the presence of the complainant was not necessary. The Trial Court was to ascertain whether process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was executed or not. The appellant has given cogent reasons in the application for unintentional absence on that day. The appellant had pursued the complaint case diligently. Forone ortwo defaults for non-appearance when no effective proceedings were to be conducted in his presence and his assistance was not required, in my view, the impugned order dismissing the complaint for non-prosecution isrequired to be set aside. Inthe interest ofjustice and to enable the appellant to get the case decided on merits, the complaint case dismissed in default for non- prosecution is ordered toberestored inits original number. The appellant
CRL.L,P. 223/2013 p(ige2of3 s shall be vigilant to pursue its case before the Trial Court.
The appeal is accepted. Trial Court record be sent back with the copy of the order. The appellant shall appear before the Trial Court on 25*
September, 2013 and Trial Court shall proceed with the complaint case as per law.
§fF:GARG,J SEPTEMBER 11,2013/tr
CRL.L.P. 223/2013 pdgs3 of3
JUDGMENT