Full Text
Translation output
$-17.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.L.P. 349/2015
RAJESH
Petitioner
Through: Ms. Jasmit Chawla, Advocate.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.L.P. 349/2015
RAJESH
Petitioner
Through: Ms. Jasmit Chawla, Advocate.
VERSUS
THE STATE (NOT OF DELHI) & ANR Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP and Ms.Ankita Goyal, Advocate for the State.
Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Through: Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP and Ms.Ankita Goyal, Advocate for the State.
Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
14.12.2016 Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 puts in appearance.
I have heard learned counsel and proceed to dispose ofthe petition.
CrI.
M.A. No.6481/2015 By this application, the petitioner seeks condonation of 26 days delay in filing the leave petition. The ground taken is that the petitioner had wrongly noted the date of hearing as 24.02.2015 instead of 24.01.2015 and, therefore, the complaint preferred by the petitioner under Section 138 of the
NT Act came to be dismissed. The delay has occurred on account of the wrong noting ofthe date in the ease.
2016:DHC:8528 1 » 1 - ^ \\ For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by the affidavit ofthe petitioner, the same is allowed.
14.12.2016 Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 puts in appearance.
I have heard learned counsel and proceed to dispose ofthe petition.
CrI.
M.A. No.6481/2015 By this application, the petitioner seeks condonation of 26 days delay in filing the leave petition. The ground taken is that the petitioner had wrongly noted the date of hearing as 24.02.2015 instead of 24.01.2015 and, therefore, the complaint preferred by the petitioner under Section 138 of the
NT Act came to be dismissed. The delay has occurred on account of the wrong noting ofthe date in the ease.
2016:DHC:8528 1 » 1 - ^ \\ For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by the affidavit ofthe petitioner, the same is allowed.
CRL.L.P. 349/2015
The petitioner has assailed the order dated 24.01.2015 passed by the learned MM (NI Act) - 02 in CC No.7083/2014. By the impugned order, the complaint preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed for non- appearance and non-proseeution.
Leave granted.
CrLAppeal No. /°^/7 /2016 (to be registered and numbered)
Let the appeal be registered and numbered.
The appellant assails the order dated 24.01.2015 dismissing the appellant's complaint for non-appearance and non-prosecution.
The case of the appellant is that the appellant tendered his pre- summoning evidence on 10.11.2014. After hearing the arguments, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the same and summoned the accused on filing of Process Fee and Registered Covers for 16.12.2014. On this occasion, the PF/RC were not filed.
On 16.12.2014, the complainant could not appear before the learned
Magistrate as he got late in reaching the Court. The complainant states that he comes from Jind District in Haryana and got caught in traffic congestion.
The learned Magistrate imposed costs for not taking steps and issued fi-esh process returnable on 20.01.2015.
On that date as well, the learned counsel for the appellant was not available on account of illness of his father. The learned counsel ha4.to return to his hometown at Panipat. The proxy counsel appeared before the
Court. Once again steps were not taken for filing the Process Fee and vr
Registered Covers and further costs of Rs.lOO/- were imposed on the complainant. FreshPF/RC was directed to be filed for issuance of summons returnable on 24.01.2015.
On this occasion as well, the counsel was out of town. Consequently, since no steps had been taken and none appeared for the complainant, the complaint cameto be dismissed for non-appearance and non-prosecution.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant shall henceforth ensure that there is no such default. She further submits that the appellant is ready & willing to compensate the accused by way of appropriate costs even though the accused had not been served with the summons and had not put in appearance by the date the complaint was dismissed for non-appearance and non-prosecution.
The record shows that the complainant has taken the proceedings rather casually. On three occasions, the complainant did not take steps to serve summons on the respondent/ accused. At the same time, I am of the view that complaints should not be dismissed on mere hyper-technicality and they should be examined on merits.
Since the complainant has now approached this Court and is desirous of pursuing the complaint, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside subject to payment of costs of Rs.15,000/-. Out ofthe said amount, Rs. 10,000/- shall be deposited in the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund, and Rs.5,000/- shall be paid to the respondent/ accused. The costs be deposited/ paid within four weeks.
The matter shall be listed before the learned Magistrate on 17.01.2017 and further proceedings shall be undertaken from the same stage at which the complaint was dismissed. The aforesaid is further subject to the
J condition that the appellant shall not take any undue adjournments and not default again in the matter offiling PF/RC.
DECEMBER 14, 2016 B.S. Rohella VIPIN SANGHI, J
The petitioner has assailed the order dated 24.01.2015 passed by the learned MM (NI Act) - 02 in CC No.7083/2014. By the impugned order, the complaint preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed for non- appearance and non-proseeution.
Leave granted.
CrLAppeal No. /°^/7 /2016 (to be registered and numbered)
Let the appeal be registered and numbered.
The appellant assails the order dated 24.01.2015 dismissing the appellant's complaint for non-appearance and non-prosecution.
The case of the appellant is that the appellant tendered his pre- summoning evidence on 10.11.2014. After hearing the arguments, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the same and summoned the accused on filing of Process Fee and Registered Covers for 16.12.2014. On this occasion, the PF/RC were not filed.
On 16.12.2014, the complainant could not appear before the learned
Magistrate as he got late in reaching the Court. The complainant states that he comes from Jind District in Haryana and got caught in traffic congestion.
The learned Magistrate imposed costs for not taking steps and issued fi-esh process returnable on 20.01.2015.
On that date as well, the learned counsel for the appellant was not available on account of illness of his father. The learned counsel ha4.to return to his hometown at Panipat. The proxy counsel appeared before the
Court. Once again steps were not taken for filing the Process Fee and vr
Registered Covers and further costs of Rs.lOO/- were imposed on the complainant. FreshPF/RC was directed to be filed for issuance of summons returnable on 24.01.2015.
On this occasion as well, the counsel was out of town. Consequently, since no steps had been taken and none appeared for the complainant, the complaint cameto be dismissed for non-appearance and non-prosecution.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant shall henceforth ensure that there is no such default. She further submits that the appellant is ready & willing to compensate the accused by way of appropriate costs even though the accused had not been served with the summons and had not put in appearance by the date the complaint was dismissed for non-appearance and non-prosecution.
The record shows that the complainant has taken the proceedings rather casually. On three occasions, the complainant did not take steps to serve summons on the respondent/ accused. At the same time, I am of the view that complaints should not be dismissed on mere hyper-technicality and they should be examined on merits.
Since the complainant has now approached this Court and is desirous of pursuing the complaint, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside subject to payment of costs of Rs.15,000/-. Out ofthe said amount, Rs. 10,000/- shall be deposited in the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund, and Rs.5,000/- shall be paid to the respondent/ accused. The costs be deposited/ paid within four weeks.
The matter shall be listed before the learned Magistrate on 17.01.2017 and further proceedings shall be undertaken from the same stage at which the complaint was dismissed. The aforesaid is further subject to the
J condition that the appellant shall not take any undue adjournments and not default again in the matter offiling PF/RC.
DECEMBER 14, 2016 B.S. Rohella VIPIN SANGHI, J
JUDGMENT