Full Text
1.
15#& 16#'$^
■ m. THE HIGH GOURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ' . ■ 'GRL.L.P. 427/2017^ • ; ' .'V'' :/
-TOP, VICTORY INVESTMENTS, ' ..... Petitioner \ , . ' ■ ' Represented by: - Ms. Shivi and-Ms.'iRinku , , ■ , / Namla,Advocates, • ' > ; versus' . , ANCITAL ENTERPRISES i Respondent
- , . / " Represented by: Mr. Taruti Gulia and Mr. V.C, . ; ■ ; Shukia, Advocates.
■ +■ 'CRL.L.P. 431/2017 V,""
- TOP VICTORY INVESTI^NTS LTD . ' ..... Petitioner ; ' .
Represented by: : Ms. Shivi and Ms. Rinku , \
, ■; ■; , ■ . - Narula,.Ady6cates.' , . V ■, L; '\^Yersus . .N, ' , : ANCHAL ENTEl^RISES ^ .— Respondent , : ' 'Represented by: Mr. TarunGuliaandlVlr.V.G.
. Shukia, Advocates. , '
■ ^CORAM:" ;'V; 'v;/
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
V 1104.2018. ■ •/;, "
CrI. M.A^ No. 12191/2017 (beiav in refiiingi in CRL.L.P. 427/2017
CrI.
M.A. No. 12260/2017 (Delay in refilingVin CRL.L.P. 431/2017
For ,the;reasons stated in the applications delay, of 25 days in refiling the leave to appeals petitions,is condoned. , ^ ; ■
; - Applications afe^d-isposed of. , , ^ ^
' CRL.L.P. 427/2017 ' ^
CRLX.P. 431/2017
T. Haying pel^s.ed the'order sheets ofthe learned Trial Court, this Court
CRL.LPs.i27/20i7i& 431/2017 : page 1 ^ 4 r f
2018:DHC:9368
K. deems itfitto grantleave to appeal.
ORDER
2. Petitions are disposed of. Crl.Appeal No. 72018(to be numbered) Crl.AppealNo. 72018fto benumbered) n ^
1. Registry to number the appeals.
2. Appellant had filed two complaints before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Section'138 Negotiable Instruments Act being Complaint Case Nos. 28534/2016 and 29504/2016 (initially numbered as Complaint Case Nos.957/1/2015 and 958/1/2015)besides other complaints.,The same came,,up before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on'29^^ September, 2015 when they were listed for pre-su'mmoning evidence ofthe authorised representative ofthe appellant on 29^''January,2016. Oh 29^^ Januaiy,2016 evidence by way^of affidavit of the authorised representative of the complainant was tendered and documents were exhibited. Learned Trial Courtissued summonsto the respondent,returnable on 7^*^ June,2016 along with an application for compounding ofthe offence atthe first orthe second hearing ofthe case. th
3. On 7 June; 20.16 fresh vakalatnama was filed on behalf of the accused/respondent and an exemption from personal appearance was also sought,which was granted and the complaints were put up for appearance of the accused/framing ofnotice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. on 30^^ November,
2016. th '
4. On 30 November,,2016 learned counsel for both the parties were present and requested for referring the matter to the Mediation Centre, Patiala House Court which reference was made and awaiting the report of CRL.L.PS.427/2017& 431/2017 page 2 of[4] the mediation,the coniplaints were listed for 22"'^ December,2016. On 22"^^ December, 2016 none appeared for the accused however, learned proxy counsel for the complainant appeared,and informed that the parties were mediating before the Mediation Centre, Patiala House Courts. Thus, the complaints were fixed for 25 March, 2017. It was also noted that the matter wasfixedfor mediation on 20^*^ January,2017. On,21®^January,2017 on the rejport of mediation having been received Court noted that none appeared for the complainant.despite repeated calls though accused was present in person along with the counsel and put up the matter for the date fixed,thatis,25^^^ March,.2017.
5. On 25^^ March, 2017, when none appeared for the complainant, learned Trial Court dismissed the complaints in defaultfor non-prosecution.
6. As noted, date of2D'January,2017 was not fixed before the learned Trial Court and the complaints were taken up because ofthe reportreceived from the Judge In-charge, Delhi Mediation Centre, Patiala House Courts who had sent the report that the parties could not arrive at a settlement. Thus though exemptions were sought on behalf ofthe accused/respondent on previous dates, learned counsel for the complainant was appearing regularly except for 25"' March,2017 on which date the,complaints were dismissed for non-prosecution...
7. Explanation oflearned counselforthe appellantisthatinadvertently a wrong date was noted in the dairy ofthe learned counsel.Copy ofthe diary dated 21" January,.2017 of learned counsel has been placed on record ' ' h wherein date of 28'" March, 2017 has been noted instead of 25' March, 2017., CRL.L.PS.427/2017& 431/2017 n, page3of[4]
8. in view of the explanation rendered the appeals afe^ liable to.be allowed. Impugned order dismissing,the complaints for non-prosecution and acquitting the respondent, are set aside. Complaint Case Nos. - 1 ' 28534/2016 and 29504/2016 titled as'M/s Top Victory Investments Ltd. vs. M/s AnchalEnterprises'are restored to their original position.
9. Parties will appear before the learned Trial Court on 'May,2018.,
10. Appeals are disposed of.,11. Order dasti... MUKTA GUPTA,J. APRIL 12,2018 'vn' '