Jindal Leasefin Ltd v. State & Anr

Delhi High Court · 06 Feb 2019 · 2019:DHC:7876
Mukta Gupta
CRL.L.P.328/2017
2019:DHC:7876
criminal appeal_allowed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and restored a complaint dismissed for non-prosecution, emphasizing that isolated absence does not justify dismissal when the complainant has otherwise diligently pursued the case.

Full Text
Translation output
$--17 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.L.P.328/2017
JINDAL LEASEFIN LTD •• Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.Yogesh Chhabra,Advocate
VERSUS
STATE& ANR ...Respondents Represented by: Mr.Ashok K.Garg,APP for the State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
ORDER o/o 06.02.2019 Crl.M.A.No.8965/2017(delay)
For the reasons stated in the application,the delay of24 days in filing the leave petition is condoned.
Application is disposed of.
CRL.L.P.328/2017
Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the impugned
JUDGMENT
dismissing the complaint under Section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act read with Section 420/120-B IPC for non-prosecution.
Despite pass over,none appearson behalfofrespondentNo.2.
Having perused the copies of the order sheets of the learned Trial
Court,this Courtdeemsitfitto grantleave to appeal.
Petition is disposed of.
CRL.L.P.328/2017 ^
2019:DHC:7876 Crl.A.No. K3 72019(to be numbered)
Registry to number the appeal.
Admit.
A perusal of the order sheet reveals that the complaint being
Complaint Case No.1751/1/2015 titled 'Jindal Leasefin Ltd. Vs. Shri Rinku
Verma' was filed in the year 1998 and the appellant who is the complainant through its authorized representative was diligently following it despite it being transferred. However,on 24"^ October,2016 none appeared for the complainantandthe matter waslistedfor 25^*^February,2017when again on pass over, none appeared on behalf ofthe complainant and the complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution.
Considering the fact that this was the only default on behalf ofthe appellant who was diligently pursuing the complaint through its attorney, this Court deems it fit to allow the appeal. Accordingly, impugned order dated 25^'' February, 2017 is set aside and the complaint is restored to its original position.
The complaint is directed to be listed before the learned Trial Court on 25^*" March, 2019 when the learned Trial Court will proceed with the complaint after summoning the accused as posttransfer the accused had not been summoned and even in the present Appeal none appears on behalfof the respondenttoday despite pass over.
Appealis disposed of. Order dasti.
MUKTA GUPTA,J.
FEBRUARY 06,2019 ' rk' CKL.L.?.328/2017 ^ 2019:DHC:7876