Full Text
Translation output
$—9
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.L.P. 357/2012
DLF UNIVERSAL LTD. THR KNOWN AS DLF LTD. THR.ITS
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Petitioner
Through Mr. Ravi Bassi, Adv.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.L.P. 357/2012
DLF UNIVERSAL LTD. THR KNOWN AS DLF LTD. THR.ITS
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Petitioner
Through Mr. Ravi Bassi, Adv.
VERSUS
STATE & ORS.
Respondent
Through Mr. Mukesh Gupta, APP for theState.
Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (Appearance not given).
Respondent
Through Mr. Mukesh Gupta, APP for theState.
Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (Appearance not given).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
01.03.2013 Crl.M.A. 1709/2013 (Delav)
Learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3/applicant seeks leave to withdraw the application. Leave granted.
Application is dismissed aswithdrawn.
Crl.L.P. 357/2012 Heard learned counsels for the parties.
Leave to appeal is granted.
Petition is disposed of.
CrLA. /2013 Registry to number the appeal.
2013:DHC:8339 Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that the complaiht ofthe appellant under Section 138 NI Act was erroneously dismissed for non- prosecution on 14"^ March, 2012. On 20'^'^ January, 2012 when the matter was listed, counsel for the Appellant was present and the Appellant was exempted from appearance on that date. Counsel for the Appellant prayed that the accused be served at the Canada address and thus summons were directed to be issued to the accused at the Canada address and the date was fixed for 22"'^ March, 2012. However, in the order sheet instead of 22"'^
March, 2012, the date was noted as 22"^* February, 2012. He has placed on record, a copy ofthe process fee form as well which shows that the next date was 22"^^ March, 2012. Since the Appellant had noted the date as 22"''
March, 2012, when the matter was taken up on 22"^* February, 2012, he was not there. On 22"^^ February, 2012 since the learned Judge was on leave, the matter was renotified for 14^'^ March, 2012 and on 14'^ March, 2012 the learned Trial Court called out the matter thrice and in view of the absence of the complainant, the complaint was dismissed.
Learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on the other hand contends that ancillary proceedings are pending before various forums.
Further against the order dated 14"^ March, 2012, the Appellant had filed an revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which was dismissed. Hence the present appeal is notmaintainable.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties. A perusal of the order sheet shows that on 20"" January, 2012 when the matter was listed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, it was adjourned to 22"^* February, 2012.
Be that as itmay, the Appellant noted the same as 22"^^ March, 2012 as the copy of the process fee form enclosfed with the petition showed that the notices to the accused have been issued at Canada address and the date of hearing is noted as 22"'' March, 2012. The explanation ofthe Appellant is bona fide because in case notices have to be served at Canada, learned
Metropolitan Magistrate must have given a longer date and not a shorter date. On 22"'' February, 2012, learned counsel for the Appellant was not present as he had not noted the said date. Since the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate was on leave on that date, the matter was renotified for 14"^
March, 2012. Not being aware ofthe date of14'*^ March, 2012, neither the complainant nor his counsel appeared in Court and thus, the matter was dismissed for non-prosecution. The non-appearance of the complaint/Appellant and his counsel is wholly bona fide and cannot be faulted with. As regards the contention of learned counsel for Respondent
Nos. 2 and 3 that the Appellant had filed a revision petition as well, it may be noted that the revision petition of the Appellant was dismissed as not maintainable and thus, cannot prejudice the Appellant inthe present appeal, which is the remedy maintainable as per law.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 14'*^
March, 2012 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in complaint case No. 654/2009 is set aside. The complaint is restored to its original position. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate on 2"^^ April, 2013.
Appeal is disposed of.
MARCH 01,2013 'vkm' MUKTA GUPTA, J
01.03.2013 Crl.M.A. 1709/2013 (Delav)
Learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3/applicant seeks leave to withdraw the application. Leave granted.
Application is dismissed aswithdrawn.
Crl.L.P. 357/2012 Heard learned counsels for the parties.
Leave to appeal is granted.
Petition is disposed of.
CrLA. /2013 Registry to number the appeal.
2013:DHC:8339 Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that the complaiht ofthe appellant under Section 138 NI Act was erroneously dismissed for non- prosecution on 14"^ March, 2012. On 20'^'^ January, 2012 when the matter was listed, counsel for the Appellant was present and the Appellant was exempted from appearance on that date. Counsel for the Appellant prayed that the accused be served at the Canada address and thus summons were directed to be issued to the accused at the Canada address and the date was fixed for 22"'^ March, 2012. However, in the order sheet instead of 22"'^
March, 2012, the date was noted as 22"^* February, 2012. He has placed on record, a copy ofthe process fee form as well which shows that the next date was 22"^^ March, 2012. Since the Appellant had noted the date as 22"''
March, 2012, when the matter was taken up on 22"^* February, 2012, he was not there. On 22"^^ February, 2012 since the learned Judge was on leave, the matter was renotified for 14^'^ March, 2012 and on 14'^ March, 2012 the learned Trial Court called out the matter thrice and in view of the absence of the complainant, the complaint was dismissed.
Learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on the other hand contends that ancillary proceedings are pending before various forums.
Further against the order dated 14"^ March, 2012, the Appellant had filed an revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which was dismissed. Hence the present appeal is notmaintainable.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties. A perusal of the order sheet shows that on 20"" January, 2012 when the matter was listed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, it was adjourned to 22"^* February, 2012.
Be that as itmay, the Appellant noted the same as 22"^^ March, 2012 as the copy of the process fee form enclosfed with the petition showed that the notices to the accused have been issued at Canada address and the date of hearing is noted as 22"'' March, 2012. The explanation ofthe Appellant is bona fide because in case notices have to be served at Canada, learned
Metropolitan Magistrate must have given a longer date and not a shorter date. On 22"'' February, 2012, learned counsel for the Appellant was not present as he had not noted the said date. Since the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate was on leave on that date, the matter was renotified for 14"^
March, 2012. Not being aware ofthe date of14'*^ March, 2012, neither the complainant nor his counsel appeared in Court and thus, the matter was dismissed for non-prosecution. The non-appearance of the complaint/Appellant and his counsel is wholly bona fide and cannot be faulted with. As regards the contention of learned counsel for Respondent
Nos. 2 and 3 that the Appellant had filed a revision petition as well, it may be noted that the revision petition of the Appellant was dismissed as not maintainable and thus, cannot prejudice the Appellant inthe present appeal, which is the remedy maintainable as per law.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 14'*^
March, 2012 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in complaint case No. 654/2009 is set aside. The complaint is restored to its original position. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate on 2"^^ April, 2013.
Appeal is disposed of.
MARCH 01,2013 'vkm' MUKTA GUPTA, J
JUDGMENT