Kiran Tonpe Prop. Suvidha Sales vs Sumit S/O. Chhedilal Shahu Prop. ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 3706 Bom

                                                    1                     apeal191.17.odt

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.191/2017

      Kiran Tonpe,
      Proprietor Suvidha Sales,
      Aged about 38 years, Occ. Business,
      r/o 140, Durga Chowk, Yerkheda, 
      Kamptee, Nagpur, Dist. Nagpur.                         .....APPELLANT

                               ...V E R S U S...

      Sumit s/o Chhedilal Shahu, 
      Proprietor of Shri Sai Sales, aged major,
      Occ. Business, r/o C/o Saurabha Shahu
      Kirana Stores, Hudkeshwar Road, 
      Nagpur, Dist. Nagpur.                                   ...RESPONDENT
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Mr H. I. Kothari, Advocate for appellant.
 Mr. R. D. Karode, Advocate for respondent.. 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE, J.

DATED :- 28.06.2017 ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that

the present appellant is original complainant who has filed the

proceeding under the Negotiable Instruments Act against the

present respondent. Summons were issued and the respondent

appeared before the learned Magistrate and from time to time the

matte was adjourned. He invited my attention to the cause list of

2 apeal191.17.odt

26th J.M.F.C. and C.J.J.D. Nagpur dated 14.09.2016. The criminal

case filed on behalf of the present appellant bears S.C.C.No.

15708/2013, Kiran .vs. Sumit. The said case was at serial no.24 of

the cause list dated 14.09.2016. The learned counsel submitted

that initially the next date was given as 14.10.2016. After getting

that date, the appellant-complainant left the Court but

subsequently it appears that the date was changed from

14.10.2016 to 24.09.2016. When the matter was called out on

24.09.2016, the appellant/complainant remained absent.

Consequently the learned Judge dismissed the complaint.

3. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the

appellant that in view of the change of date, there was no occasion

either for the complainant or his counsel to remain present on

24.09.2016.

4. Mr. Karode, the learned counsel for the respondent also

fairly submits that initially the date was given as 14.10.2016 and it

was subsequently changed to 14.09.2016.

3 apeal191.17.odt

5. In that view of the matter, the appeal is allowed. The

impugned order dated 24.09.2016 in S.C.C. No.15708/2013 is

quashed and set aside since it was passed behind the back of the

present appellant without offering any opportunity. S.C.C.No.

15708/2013 is restored to file. Both the learned counsel submit

that the complainant and the accused will remain present before

the learned Magistrate on 10.07.2017. After their appearance, the

learned Magistrate shall take necessary steps to dispose of the

matter.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as

to costs.

JUDGE

kahale