Full Text
CRL.L.P.511/2016
VINAY KUMAR Petitioner Represented by: Mr.S.K.Mittal,Adv.
Mr.Ranjeet Singh,Adv.for R-2.
13.03.2019
ORDER
1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the impugned order dated 15^*^ July,2016 whereby the complaint case filed by him being CC No. 442/2015 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act(in short NI Act)titled as 'VinayKumar Fs. Kamal Chand' was dismissed for non-prosecution and the respondent was acquitted ofthe charge.
2. Having perused the order-sheets ofthe learned Trial Court,this Court deems itfitto grantleave to appeal. Petition is disposed of. CRL.A. /2019.IRegistrv to numberthe appeal)
1. Admit.
2. A perusal ofthe order sheets ofthe learned Trial Court would reveal that the petitioner filed the complaint before the learned Metropolitan CRL.L.P.511/2016 page 1 of[3] 2019:DHC:7879 D Magistrate in June, 2015 when it came up before the Court on 24^^ June, 2015 and the complainant along with the counsel was present. Even on the next date i.e. 25^*" June, 2015 the petitioner along with his counsel was present and after hearing arguments the respondent was summoned as an accused. On 26^^ August,2015 again the petitioner was present but despite service ofsummons respondent failed to appear. Counsel for the petitioner appeared on 20^*^ October, 2015 when the learned PO was on leave. However,thereafter on 22"^* December,2015 the petitioner did not appear, whereafter neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared for four consecutive dates and hence the complaint was dismissed for nonth prosecution on 15 July,2016.
3. Petitioner has placed on record medical documents to show that he was suffering from enteric fever on the last two dates when the matter was fixed i.e. 9**^ July,2016 and 15^^ July,2016 resulting in the non-appearance ofthe petitioner. Further the petitioner's counsel was also negligent in not appearing before the learned Trial Court.
4. Considering the fact that the petitioner has given some cause for his non-appearance, this Court deems it fit to restore the complaint case to its original position, however subject to cost. Consequently, the impugned order dated 15^'' July, 2016 is set aside. Complaint case being CC NO. 442/2015 is restored to its original position subjectto the petitioner paying a cost of?25,000/- to the respondent No.2 on the next date ofhearing before the learned Trial Court. Petitioner and authorized representative of respondentNo.2are directedto appear beforethelearned Trial Courton lO^'' April, 2019 when the cost as imposed will be paid by the petitioner to the CRL.L.P.511/2016 page 2 of[3] authorized representative ofrespondentNo.2.
5. Appeal is disposed of.
MARCH 13,2019 'ga' MUKTA GUPTA,J.