Full Text
Translation output
$--26 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.L.P. 244/2017
MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA Petitioner Represented by: Mr. K.S. Goswami, Adv.
CRL.L.P. 244/2017
MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA Petitioner Represented by: Mr. K.S. Goswami, Adv.
VERSUS
KARNAIL SINGH
Respondent Represented by: Mr. S.P. Verma, Adv.
Respondent Represented by: Mr. S.P. Verma, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
04.12.2017
04.12.2017
CRL.L.P. 244/2017
A perusal of the order sheet reveals that on one date when the complainant was not present the complaint was dismissed for non- prosecution.
Considering the copies of the order sheets placed on record this Court on hearing learned counsel for the parties finds it to be a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.
Leave to appeal petition is disposed of CRL.A. f11 /2017 (Registry to numberthe appeal)
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties this Court has heard the appeal itself
The complaint case being CC No. 46279/2015 titled as ""Manoj Kumar
Sharma Vs. Karnail SingJi was dismissed by the learned Metropolitan
A perusal of the order sheet reveals that on one date when the complainant was not present the complaint was dismissed for non- prosecution.
Considering the copies of the order sheets placed on record this Court on hearing learned counsel for the parties finds it to be a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.
Leave to appeal petition is disposed of CRL.A. f11 /2017 (Registry to numberthe appeal)
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties this Court has heard the appeal itself
The complaint case being CC No. 46279/2015 titled as ""Manoj Kumar
Sharma Vs. Karnail SingJi was dismissed by the learned Metropolitan
CRL.L.P. 244/2017
2017:DHC:8597 Magistrate on 2"^^ February, 2017 for non-prosecution and thus present appeal. Aperusal ofthe copies ofthe order sheets ofthe learned Trial Court would reveal that notice was framed against the respondent under Section
251 Cr.P.C. on 10^ September, 2014 and thereafter matter was fixed for filing of an application under Section 145(2) of the NI Act by the respondent. On the next date learned Trial Court noted that notice under
Section 251 Cr.P.C. having already been served on 10^^ September, 2014 the application under Section 145(2)NI Act is required to be allowed.
The complainant/ petitioner concluded its evidence by examining himself on 25^ October, 2016 and the matter was listed for examination of the respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and for summoning the witnesses returnable on 10^ November, 2016. Despite repeated adjournments defence witnesses were not examined on 1^^ December, 2016; 3^"^ January, 2017 and
19^ January, 2017. On 2"^ February, 2017 none was present on behalfofthe complainant. The learned Trial Court also noted that the previous cost as imposed on the complainant has not been paid. In view of the absence of the complainant on one date the complaint has been dismissed for non- prosecution.
None ofthe order sheet of the learned Trial Court reveal that cost was imposed on the complainantwhich was requiredto be paid. Consideringthe previous conduct of the complainant that he was diligently appearing and had concluded his evidence without delay and the matter was pending for examination of the defence witness, this Court deems it fit to allow the appeal. The impugned
2017:DHC:8597 Magistrate on 2"^^ February, 2017 for non-prosecution and thus present appeal. Aperusal ofthe copies ofthe order sheets ofthe learned Trial Court would reveal that notice was framed against the respondent under Section
251 Cr.P.C. on 10^ September, 2014 and thereafter matter was fixed for filing of an application under Section 145(2) of the NI Act by the respondent. On the next date learned Trial Court noted that notice under
Section 251 Cr.P.C. having already been served on 10^^ September, 2014 the application under Section 145(2)NI Act is required to be allowed.
The complainant/ petitioner concluded its evidence by examining himself on 25^ October, 2016 and the matter was listed for examination of the respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and for summoning the witnesses returnable on 10^ November, 2016. Despite repeated adjournments defence witnesses were not examined on 1^^ December, 2016; 3^"^ January, 2017 and
19^ January, 2017. On 2"^ February, 2017 none was present on behalfofthe complainant. The learned Trial Court also noted that the previous cost as imposed on the complainant has not been paid. In view of the absence of the complainant on one date the complaint has been dismissed for non- prosecution.
None ofthe order sheet of the learned Trial Court reveal that cost was imposed on the complainantwhich was requiredto be paid. Consideringthe previous conduct of the complainant that he was diligently appearing and had concluded his evidence without delay and the matter was pending for examination of the defence witness, this Court deems it fit to allow the appeal. The impugned
ORDER
dated 2"*^ February, 2017 dismissing the complaint is set aside. The matterbe listedbeforethe learned Trial Courton
CRL.L,P, 244/2017 8^January, 2018 for further proceedings inaccordance with law.
Appeal is disposed of.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
DECEMBER 04,2017 'ga' CRL,L,P. 244/2017 page 3 of3
CRL.L,P, 244/2017 8^January, 2018 for further proceedings inaccordance with law.
Appeal is disposed of.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
DECEMBER 04,2017 'ga' CRL,L,P. 244/2017 page 3 of3