Full Text
Translation output
$- {< HIGH COURT OF DELHI CRL.L.P. 45I2OIO ANAND KUMAR
Through IVIr. U. K. Shandilya, Advocate
Through IVIr. U. K. Shandilya, Advocate
VERSUS
SANDEEP SRIVASTAVA & ORS ..... Respondent
Through. i\&. Amit Khemka, Advocate for R-1, 3 and 4.
Through. i\&. Amit Khemka, Advocate for R-1, 3 and 4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
ORDER o 16.05.2011 CrI.
M.A. No. 1826/2010(Delay)
Since there is no delay in filing the leave to appeal in view of the earlier application filed, the application for condonation of delay if any is dismissed as not pressed.
CrI. L.P. No.4512010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Leave to appeal is granted.
Petition disposed of.
Appellant is that on27il'July, 2009 the Complainant i.e. the Petitioner herein was present before the court, however, the learned Presiding Officer was on counsel for the parties. The grievance of the
CRL.L.P.ASDOIO page I of3 2011:DHC:7478 B leave. Despite this fact, on 13th November,2009 when the case was called up, as the Complainant was not present, the hon'ble court observed that
Court notice had been duly served on the Complainant but he has not appeared thus the case cannot be proceeded firrther in the absence of active steps of the Complainant. In view of these findings, the learned Trial Court dismissed the complaint for want of prosecution and in default. A perusal of the order-sheets show that initially the Complainant was examined on 7fr
Muy, 2OOi and summons were issued to the accused. On the next date, the learned Presiding Officer was on leave. However on 18ft November, 2008 none was present for the Complainant. On 22"d September, 2008 it was noted that the Complainant was not present. However on that date at 11:00 a.m. the file was taken up on the mentioning of the Complainant and the presence of the Complainant was thus recorded and fresh summons were issued to the accused. Thereafter, the case was transferred. On 19th Muy, 2OOg, the Complainant had not appeared and thus Court notice was issued for 27n' July, 2009. On this date, the Complainant was present and the learned Presiding Officer was on leave.
Thus the finding of the learned Trial Court vide its order dated 30th
CRL.LP.45l20l0 page 2 of3 I Novernber, 20II that Court notice had been duly served upon the
Complainant, but none has appeared are not borne out from the record. The court notice was issued for 2lth July,20Og and not for 30th Novernber,2009.
The Complainant had absented on two dates and on the other dates the adjournments were given for other reasons.
In view the facts and circumstances of the present case, the impugned order dated 30tl' November, 2009 dismissing the cornplaint case NO. 6t3/2009 is set aside. The complaint is restored to its original position. The parties will appear before the Trial Court on29th July, 20II.
The appeal is accordingly allowed.
Wh''r6- r MUxtA GUPTA,J MAY l6,20lt odkt
ORDER o 16.05.2011 CrI.
M.A. No. 1826/2010(Delay)
Since there is no delay in filing the leave to appeal in view of the earlier application filed, the application for condonation of delay if any is dismissed as not pressed.
CrI. L.P. No.4512010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Leave to appeal is granted.
Petition disposed of.
Appellant is that on27il'July, 2009 the Complainant i.e. the Petitioner herein was present before the court, however, the learned Presiding Officer was on counsel for the parties. The grievance of the
CRL.L.P.ASDOIO page I of3 2011:DHC:7478 B leave. Despite this fact, on 13th November,2009 when the case was called up, as the Complainant was not present, the hon'ble court observed that
Court notice had been duly served on the Complainant but he has not appeared thus the case cannot be proceeded firrther in the absence of active steps of the Complainant. In view of these findings, the learned Trial Court dismissed the complaint for want of prosecution and in default. A perusal of the order-sheets show that initially the Complainant was examined on 7fr
Muy, 2OOi and summons were issued to the accused. On the next date, the learned Presiding Officer was on leave. However on 18ft November, 2008 none was present for the Complainant. On 22"d September, 2008 it was noted that the Complainant was not present. However on that date at 11:00 a.m. the file was taken up on the mentioning of the Complainant and the presence of the Complainant was thus recorded and fresh summons were issued to the accused. Thereafter, the case was transferred. On 19th Muy, 2OOg, the Complainant had not appeared and thus Court notice was issued for 27n' July, 2009. On this date, the Complainant was present and the learned Presiding Officer was on leave.
Thus the finding of the learned Trial Court vide its order dated 30th
CRL.LP.45l20l0 page 2 of3 I Novernber, 20II that Court notice had been duly served upon the
Complainant, but none has appeared are not borne out from the record. The court notice was issued for 2lth July,20Og and not for 30th Novernber,2009.
The Complainant had absented on two dates and on the other dates the adjournments were given for other reasons.
In view the facts and circumstances of the present case, the impugned order dated 30tl' November, 2009 dismissing the cornplaint case NO. 6t3/2009 is set aside. The complaint is restored to its original position. The parties will appear before the Trial Court on29th July, 20II.
The appeal is accordingly allowed.
Wh''r6- r MUxtA GUPTA,J MAY l6,20lt odkt
CRL.L.P.45/2010 page 3 of3
JUDGMENT