Full Text
Translation output
$-15 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.L.P.43/2018
ANJU BALA Petitioner
Through Mr.Amit Saxena and Mr.Abhishek Vashisht,Advocates alongwith petitioner in person
CRL.L.P.43/2018
ANJU BALA Petitioner
Through Mr.Amit Saxena and Mr.Abhishek Vashisht,Advocates alongwith petitioner in person
VERSUS
POOJA ARORA Respondent
Through Ms.Punam,Advocate alongwith respondent in person
Through Ms.Punam,Advocate alongwith respondent in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BRIJESH SETHI
27.09.2019
27.09.2019
CRL.M.A.978/2018(delay)
Heard.
In the interest ofjustice,the delay is condoned.
The application stands disposed of.
Heard.
In the interest ofjustice,the delay is condoned.
The application stands disposed of.
CRL.L.P.43/2018
The instant criminal leave petition under Section 378(4) of Code of
Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner against the judgement dated 03.07.2017 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate,Patiala
House Courts, New Delhi in Complaint Case No.24810/2016, wherein the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act was dismissed in defaultfor non-prosecution.
2019:DHC:7890 Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for restoration of the complaint case under Section 138 NI Act which was dismissed in default on
03.07.2017 on the ground that the petitioner was not aware about the dates ofhearing.
On the other hand,learned counselforthe respondent has opposed the same on the ground that petitioner was not appearing in the court since
28.03.2017. The absence of the petitioner before the learned Trial Court was intentional and no cogent reasons have been given for absence ofthe complainant.
I have perused the record which reveals that petitioner was regular in his appearance except for the last three dates. In this circumstance,I am of opinion that the present leave to appeal deserves to be granted to the petitioner.
Consequently, the present petition for criminal leave to appeal is allowed and disposed ofaccordingly.
IM (to be numbered) v/ Let this criminal appeal be registered and numbered.
Issue notice.
Learned counsel for respondent accepts notice.
Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
The record reveals that the petitioner was regular in her appearance before the court except for the last three dates. In the opinion ofthis court, it is in the interest ofjustice if the case is decided on merit rather than dismissing the same for non-prosecution. Keeping in mind the fact that absence ofthe petitioner was not intentional,the appeal is allowed and the impugned order/
The instant criminal leave petition under Section 378(4) of Code of
Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner against the judgement dated 03.07.2017 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate,Patiala
House Courts, New Delhi in Complaint Case No.24810/2016, wherein the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act was dismissed in defaultfor non-prosecution.
2019:DHC:7890 Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for restoration of the complaint case under Section 138 NI Act which was dismissed in default on
03.07.2017 on the ground that the petitioner was not aware about the dates ofhearing.
On the other hand,learned counselforthe respondent has opposed the same on the ground that petitioner was not appearing in the court since
28.03.2017. The absence of the petitioner before the learned Trial Court was intentional and no cogent reasons have been given for absence ofthe complainant.
I have perused the record which reveals that petitioner was regular in his appearance except for the last three dates. In this circumstance,I am of opinion that the present leave to appeal deserves to be granted to the petitioner.
Consequently, the present petition for criminal leave to appeal is allowed and disposed ofaccordingly.
IM (to be numbered) v/ Let this criminal appeal be registered and numbered.
Issue notice.
Learned counsel for respondent accepts notice.
Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
The record reveals that the petitioner was regular in her appearance before the court except for the last three dates. In the opinion ofthis court, it is in the interest ofjustice if the case is decided on merit rather than dismissing the same for non-prosecution. Keeping in mind the fact that absence ofthe petitioner was not intentional,the appeal is allowed and the impugned order/
ORDER
is set aside, subject to cost ofRs. 15,000/- to be paid to the respondent. The criminal complaint filed by the petitioner/complainantbeforetheTrial Courtshallstand restored,subjectto paymentofcostto its original number and stage.
Appealstands disposed ofaccordingly.
Parties shall appear before the concerned learned Metropolitan
Magistrate on 16.10.2019forfurther proceedings,in accordance with law.
BRIJESH SETHI,J SEPTEMBER 27,2019 savita
Appealstands disposed ofaccordingly.
Parties shall appear before the concerned learned Metropolitan
Magistrate on 16.10.2019forfurther proceedings,in accordance with law.
BRIJESH SETHI,J SEPTEMBER 27,2019 savita