Full Text
Translation output
$-18 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.L.P. 148/2016
GURCHARAN SINGH Petitionor
Through :Mr.D.K.Yati,Adv.
CRL.L.P. 148/2016
GURCHARAN SINGH Petitionor
Through :Mr.D.K.Yati,Adv.
VERSUS
NARINDER SINGH 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.148/2016 Leave to appeal granted. Registry to register this petition as an appeal.
CrI.A.No. /2017(to be registered and numbered!
With the consent ofthe parties,I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and propose to dispose ofthe appeal bythis order.
Vide order dated 23'"''December,2015, complaint under Section 138 ofthe Negotiable Instruments Act,1881("the Act",for short)ofthe petition has been dismissed in default and for non-prosecution. Trial courthas noted that none had appeared for the complainant (appellant) on the last three dates ofhearing.
2017:DHC:8593 5" 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 h^d 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,respondent continued to appear despite asking the appellantthat he will make,payment. f
Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that no settlement was reached in the Mediation Centre and for this reason alone,no Settlement
Agreement was drawn by the learned Mediator.
It is noted that petitioner had filed three complaints,which were taken 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 against the order of dismissal of complaint, wherein appeal has been allowed by a
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
] ' n - submits that respondent has all the intention to settle the matter but the rM 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 notappear before the trial courtunderthe 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 should be, asfar as possible,adjudicated on merits and the same should notbe disposed of on mere technicalities. Appellant was not to gain anything by not appearing before the trial court and 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 complaint is remanded back for re-adjudication from the same stage at which it was when the order dated
24.01.2017 CRL.L.P.no.148/2016 Leave to appeal granted. Registry to register this petition as an appeal.
CrI.A.No. /2017(to be registered and numbered!
With the consent ofthe parties,I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and propose to dispose ofthe appeal bythis order.
Vide order dated 23'"''December,2015, complaint under Section 138 ofthe Negotiable Instruments Act,1881("the Act",for short)ofthe petition has been dismissed in default and for non-prosecution. Trial courthas noted that none had appeared for the complainant (appellant) on the last three dates ofhearing.
2017:DHC:8593 5" 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 h^d 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,respondent continued to appear despite asking the appellantthat he will make,payment. f
Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that no settlement was reached in the Mediation Centre and for this reason alone,no Settlement
Agreement was drawn by the learned Mediator.
It is noted that petitioner had filed three complaints,which were taken 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 against the order of dismissal of complaint, wherein appeal has been allowed by a
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
] ' n - submits that respondent has all the intention to settle the matter but the rM 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 notappear before the trial courtunderthe 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 should be, asfar as possible,adjudicated on merits and the same should notbe disposed of on mere technicalities. Appellant was not to gain anything by not appearing before the trial court and 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 complaint is remanded back for re-adjudication from the same stage at which it was when the order dated
ORDER
23 December, 2015 came to be passed, subject to, however, cost of ^5,000/-to be paid bythe appellanttothe respondent. Parties shall appear beforethe trial courton 1 March,2017. Appeal is disposed ofin the above terms. Crl.M.A.No.3671/2016 Application is disposed ofasinfructuous.
JANUARY 24,2017 rb A.]^ATHAK,J. t-