1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No. 2602 of 2018
Amrit S/o Govind Medhe Aged About 54 Years R/o Mamta Nagar Ekta
Chowk, Gali No.5, Rajnandgaon, Police Station Rajnandgaon, District
Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. (Proposed Accused)
---- Petitioner
Versus
Jeevan S/o Lata Shri Balasageb Varudkar, Aged About 42 Years R/o
Mamta Nagar Ekta Chowk Gali No.5, Rajnandgaon Police Station
Rajanandgaon District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh At Present Subhash
Ward Bhatapara, Police Station Bhatapara Urban, District Baloda Bazar
Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. (Complainant)
---- Respondent
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 25.04.2022 Heard
1. The present petition is against framing of charge. The charges were framed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner who is accused preferred a revision before the Sessions Court Bhatapara. Thereafter, a review petition was filed on 26.10.2018. The said review petition was also dismissed on the ground that no review is permissible under the Cr.P.C.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a settled proposition that the revision once admitted cannot be dismissed for want of prosecution. He relied on the law laid down in Cr.M.P. No.766 of 2014 by this Court.
3. Perusal of the documents filed along with the petition shows that the revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed for want of prosecution on 26.10.2017. Perusal of the order dated 2 26.10.2017 would show that no reasons have been assigned and only for want of prosecution it has been dismissed.
4. Having considered the facts and the principles laid down in case of Harveer Singh & Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2019) 4 SCC 633, a revision since was not decided on merit and was dismissed for want of prosecution, the same is set aside. Consequently, the order dated 26.10.2018, which is an order on review stands allowed. Since it is submitted that the original complaint is still pending, it is directed that the parties shall appear before the revisonal Court on 15.06.2022.
5. In the meanwhile, the trial Court shall not pass any judgment in a compliant under Section 138 of N.I. Act. which is pending, till the revisional Court pass the order on merits.
6. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed off.
Sd/-
(Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Ashok