Devesh Sharma v. State & Anr.

Delhi High Court · 21 Jan 2013 · 2013:DHC:8338
G.P. Mittal
CRL.L.P. 335/2012
2013:DHC:8338
criminal appeal_allowed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court restored a complaint under Section 138 NI Act dismissed for non-prosecution due to a bona fide mistake in noting the hearing date, emphasizing that procedural lapses should not defeat substantive rights.

Full Text
Translation output
$-12 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.L.P. 335/2012
DEVESH SHARMA Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vipin Nandwani, Adv.
VERSUS
STATE & ANR. Respondent
Through: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL
21.01.2013
ORDER

1. None appears on behalf of the Respondent No.2. She has refused to accept the service of the notice. She is deemed to be served with the notice.

2. Leave Petition is allowed and be treated as Appeal.

3. Registry is directed to give a number. Crl. A. No. /20L[3]

1. There were two complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act) filed by the Petitioner against Respondent Ms. Lalita Sharma in respect of two cheques No. 529345 dated 12.11.2007 and No.529047 dated 15.03.2008 for Rs. 3 lacs each. The dispute between the parties was settled in Mediation and a report dated 07.12.2010 was submitted by the Mediator in this regard. The Respondent preferred notto make the payment in terms of the settlement and absented from the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate. The NBWs were ordered to be issued and the proceedings was started to declare her a Proclaimed Offender. Subsequently, none appeared on behalf of the Complainant, that is, the Petitioner on 02.04.2012 when the 2013:DHC:8338 complaint was dismissed for nonprosecution.

2. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that it was only on account ofwrong noting ofthe date that the complainant and his counsel could not appear. From the facts stated, there cannot be any wilful default onthepartofthePetitioner to appear inthe Court.

3. In the facts and circumstances, order dated 02.04.2012, dismissing the complaint in default, is set aside and the complaint is restored to its original number.

4. The Appeal is allowed in above terms. Parties are directedto appearbeforethe Trial Court on 02.03.2013.

5. G.P. MITTAL, J. JANUARY 21, 2013 vk