Full Text
Translation output
\v.
J
$-19 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.L.P. 149/2016
PRABHJOT SINGH . Petitioner
Through Mr.D.K.Yati,Adv. . -
J
$-19 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.L.P. 149/2016
PRABHJOT SINGH . Petitioner
Through Mr.D.K.Yati,Adv. . -
VERSUS
NARINDERSINGH Respondent
Through Mr.S.S.Oberoi,Adv.
Through Mr.S.S.Oberoi,Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.PATHAK
24.01.2017 CRL.L.P.no.149/2016 Leave to appeal granted. Registry to register this petition as an appeal.
Crl.A.No. 7/^ /2017tto be registered and numbered!
With the consent ofthe parties, I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and proposeto dispose ofthe appeal bythis order.
Vide order dated 23'"'' December,2015,complaint under Section 138 ofthe NegotiableInstruments Act,1881("the Act",forshort)ofthe petition has been dismissed in defaultand for non-prosecution. Trial court has noted that none had appeared for the complainant (appellant) on the last three
2017:DHC:8595 5" dates ofhearing.
Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that parties were referred to the Mediation Centre. Respondent had admitted his liability in the Mediation Centre and had assured the petitioner that he will make the payment ofthe amount due under the cheque. Accordingly, appellant did not pursue the complaint, believing the words of respondent that he will make payment. However,respondentcontinued to appear despite asking the appellantthathe will make payment.
Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that no settlement wasreached in the Mediation Centre and for this reason alone,no Settlement
Agreement was drawn by the learned Mediator.
Itis noted thatpetitioner had filed three complaints,which weretaken up together and were dismissed in default for non-prosecution on the same day. In one ofthe cases,petitioner filed Crl.L.P.No. 147/2016 againstthe order of dismissal of complaint, wherein appeal has been allowed by
Bench ofcoordinatejurisdiction vide order dated 28""November,2016 after granting the leave to appeal. In the said order, it has been noted that respondent had shown his willingness to settle the matter even during the pendency of criminal leave petition. Learned counsel for the respondent a submits that respondent has all the intention to settle the matter but the parties could not reach at the consensus regarding the amount, which was payable.
In the above facts, there is no reason to disbelieve the appellant that he did not appear before the trial court under the impression which he might have gathered during the mediation proceedings. The pleataken by him is a possible'plea,:in view of the conduct of respondent that he has shown willingness to settle the disputes. It is trite law that a complaint shoiild be, as far as possible,adjudicated on merits and the same should not be disposed of on mere technicalities. Appellant was not to gain anything by not appearing before the trial., court arid getting the complaint dismissed in default.
For the foregoing reasons, 'appeal is allowed and impugned order dated 23^^ December,-2015 is set aside and the complaintis remanded back for re-adjudication from the same stage at which it was when the order dated
23'^'' December, 2015 came to be passed, subject to, however, cost of
^5,000/-to bepaid bythe appellanttotherespondent.
Parties shall appear before the trial courton 1®^ March,2017.
Appeal is disposed ofin the above terms.
Crl.
M.A.no.3688/2016 Application is disposed ofasinfructuous.
JANUARY 24,2017 rb A.KJ K,J.
J
24.01.2017 CRL.L.P.no.149/2016 Leave to appeal granted. Registry to register this petition as an appeal.
Crl.A.No. 7/^ /2017tto be registered and numbered!
With the consent ofthe parties, I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and proposeto dispose ofthe appeal bythis order.
Vide order dated 23'"'' December,2015,complaint under Section 138 ofthe NegotiableInstruments Act,1881("the Act",forshort)ofthe petition has been dismissed in defaultand for non-prosecution. Trial court has noted that none had appeared for the complainant (appellant) on the last three
2017:DHC:8595 5" dates ofhearing.
Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that parties were referred to the Mediation Centre. Respondent had admitted his liability in the Mediation Centre and had assured the petitioner that he will make the payment ofthe amount due under the cheque. Accordingly, appellant did not pursue the complaint, believing the words of respondent that he will make payment. However,respondentcontinued to appear despite asking the appellantthathe will make payment.
Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that no settlement wasreached in the Mediation Centre and for this reason alone,no Settlement
Agreement was drawn by the learned Mediator.
Itis noted thatpetitioner had filed three complaints,which weretaken up together and were dismissed in default for non-prosecution on the same day. In one ofthe cases,petitioner filed Crl.L.P.No. 147/2016 againstthe order of dismissal of complaint, wherein appeal has been allowed by
Bench ofcoordinatejurisdiction vide order dated 28""November,2016 after granting the leave to appeal. In the said order, it has been noted that respondent had shown his willingness to settle the matter even during the pendency of criminal leave petition. Learned counsel for the respondent a submits that respondent has all the intention to settle the matter but the parties could not reach at the consensus regarding the amount, which was payable.
In the above facts, there is no reason to disbelieve the appellant that he did not appear before the trial court under the impression which he might have gathered during the mediation proceedings. The pleataken by him is a possible'plea,:in view of the conduct of respondent that he has shown willingness to settle the disputes. It is trite law that a complaint shoiild be, as far as possible,adjudicated on merits and the same should not be disposed of on mere technicalities. Appellant was not to gain anything by not appearing before the trial., court arid getting the complaint dismissed in default.
For the foregoing reasons, 'appeal is allowed and impugned order dated 23^^ December,-2015 is set aside and the complaintis remanded back for re-adjudication from the same stage at which it was when the order dated
23'^'' December, 2015 came to be passed, subject to, however, cost of
^5,000/-to bepaid bythe appellanttotherespondent.
Parties shall appear before the trial courton 1®^ March,2017.
Appeal is disposed ofin the above terms.
Crl.
M.A.no.3688/2016 Application is disposed ofasinfructuous.
JANUARY 24,2017 rb A.KJ K,J.
J
JUDGMENT