Full Text
Translation output
L
$-15 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.L.P.424/2016 , , ANURAGARORA Petitioner
Through: Mr. Surender Singh and Mr. Sanjay Kumar,Advs.
$-15 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.L.P.424/2016 , , ANURAGARORA Petitioner
Through: Mr. Surender Singh and Mr. Sanjay Kumar,Advs.
VERSUS
THE STATE&ANR ' Respondents
Through: ,Mr.Tarang SriVastava,APP.for R-1.
Through: ,Mr.Tarang SriVastava,APP.for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.FATHAK
ORDER o/o 23.11.2016 Respondent no.2 has been served, however no one appears for respondent no.2 despite service., Respondent no.l is state. Learned
Additional Public Prosecutor submits that this is the complaint case filed by petitioner againstrespondentno.2 beforetrial courtunder Section 138 ofthe
NegotiableInstruments Actand state has nothingto do with the matter.
Vide order dated 30^^ April, 2016, trial court has dismissed the complaint for non- prosecution as well as non-appearance since petitioner/complainanthad remained unrepresented onthat day.
Leaveto appeal granted. Registry to registerthe petition as an appeal.
Crl.A.//2V/2OI6 (to be numbered)
2016:DHC:8516 c Heard.
Learned counsel for appellant submits that after filing of the complaint,same was diligently pursued by the appellant. On 31 October, 2015, appellant along with his counsel appeared and tendered his affidavit by way ofevidence along withthe documents. Afterhearing argumentsand perusingtherecord,trial courttook cognizance ofthe offence under Section
138 ofthe Negotiable Instruments Act, 1887 and ordered to issue summons to the accused returnable for 21^ February,2016. On 27^^ February,2016, neither appellant nor his counsel could appear in time and the matter was adjourned to 30"" April,2016. Learned counsel for appellant wentto court th later and noted the next date of hearing as 7 May, 2016 instead of 30 April,2016resulting in dismissal ofcomplaintfor non-appearance and non- prosecution. It is submitted that on 30''^~ April, 2016, even accused/respondent no.2had remained unrepresented.Certified copies ofthe order sheets have been placed on record. The plea taken by appellant is that his counsel had noted the next,date ofhearing as 7^^ May,2016 instead of
30''^ April,2016 thus,appellantremained unrepresented on 30^^ April,2016.
Appellant was not to gain anything by his non-appearance resulting in dismissal ofthe complaint, which was prejudicial to his own interest. The plea taken by the appellant is probable and plausible and there is no reason to disbelieve the same.
Keeping in mind the above facts and circumstances,impugned order dated 30'^' April, 2016 is set aside and complaint is restored to its original number,subjectto however cost of^10,000/- to be paid by the appellantto respondent no.2. Appellant shall appear before the trial court on 8'
} December,2016. d Appeal is disposed ofinthe aboveterms. th
A.KLrATHAK,J.
NOVEMBER 23,2016/dk
ORDER o/o 23.11.2016 Respondent no.2 has been served, however no one appears for respondent no.2 despite service., Respondent no.l is state. Learned
Additional Public Prosecutor submits that this is the complaint case filed by petitioner againstrespondentno.2 beforetrial courtunder Section 138 ofthe
NegotiableInstruments Actand state has nothingto do with the matter.
Vide order dated 30^^ April, 2016, trial court has dismissed the complaint for non- prosecution as well as non-appearance since petitioner/complainanthad remained unrepresented onthat day.
Leaveto appeal granted. Registry to registerthe petition as an appeal.
Crl.A.//2V/2OI6 (to be numbered)
2016:DHC:8516 c Heard.
Learned counsel for appellant submits that after filing of the complaint,same was diligently pursued by the appellant. On 31 October, 2015, appellant along with his counsel appeared and tendered his affidavit by way ofevidence along withthe documents. Afterhearing argumentsand perusingtherecord,trial courttook cognizance ofthe offence under Section
138 ofthe Negotiable Instruments Act, 1887 and ordered to issue summons to the accused returnable for 21^ February,2016. On 27^^ February,2016, neither appellant nor his counsel could appear in time and the matter was adjourned to 30"" April,2016. Learned counsel for appellant wentto court th later and noted the next date of hearing as 7 May, 2016 instead of 30 April,2016resulting in dismissal ofcomplaintfor non-appearance and non- prosecution. It is submitted that on 30''^~ April, 2016, even accused/respondent no.2had remained unrepresented.Certified copies ofthe order sheets have been placed on record. The plea taken by appellant is that his counsel had noted the next,date ofhearing as 7^^ May,2016 instead of
30''^ April,2016 thus,appellantremained unrepresented on 30^^ April,2016.
Appellant was not to gain anything by his non-appearance resulting in dismissal ofthe complaint, which was prejudicial to his own interest. The plea taken by the appellant is probable and plausible and there is no reason to disbelieve the same.
Keeping in mind the above facts and circumstances,impugned order dated 30'^' April, 2016 is set aside and complaint is restored to its original number,subjectto however cost of^10,000/- to be paid by the appellantto respondent no.2. Appellant shall appear before the trial court on 8'
} December,2016. d Appeal is disposed ofinthe aboveterms. th
A.KLrATHAK,J.
NOVEMBER 23,2016/dk
JUDGMENT