Gruh Finance Limited vs Indrajeet Motising Rajpur
2017 Latest Caselaw 7896 Bom

                                     1                                       apeal573of06



                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                  

                           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 573 OF 2006


 Gruh Finance limited,
 A   body   Corporate   constituted   under
 Companies   Act,   1956,   and   having   its
 Registered   office   at   "GRUH"   Netaji   Marg
 near   Mithakali   Six   Roads,   Ellosbridge,
 Ahmedabad-6   (State   of   Maharashtra)   and
 having   amongst   other   branches   at   kaweri
 Complex,   Maltekadi   Raod,   Amaravati,
 acting   through   its   Branch   manager,   Shri.
 Omprakash H. Patel, aged about 30 years,
 Occupation   -   Serivce,   R/o.   L.I.C.   Colony,
 Amravati
                                   ....APPELLANT


                     VERSUS


 Shri. Indrajeet s/o. Motisingh Rajput,
 aged about 40 years, Occupation : Service,
 R/o.   C/o.   Mahatma   Jyotiba   Phule
 Mahavidyalaya,   Bhatkuli,   Tahsil,   Bhatkuli,
 District Amravati, PSO Frezarpura.

                         ....RESPONDENT
 ______________________________________________________________
            Mr. Abhijit Sambaray, Advocate for appellant.
            Mr. S.M. Ghodeswar, Advocate for respondent.
 ______________________________________________________________

                                         CORAM  :  ROHIT B. DEO, J.

                                         DATED    :    6
                                                            OCTOBER, 2017
                                                         th




 ORAL JUDGMENT : 

The appellant is challenging the order dated 5.7.2005 in

2 apeal573of06

Criminal Complaint Case 2359 of 2002, delivered by the Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Amravati, by and under which, the complaint

under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was dismissed

for want of prosecution.

2 With the assistance of the learned counsel for the

appellant and the respondent, I have perused the order-sheet. I have

also perused the affidavit sworn by Advocate Nilesh Khandelwal, the

learned counsel for the appellant / complainant in the Trial Court. The

affidavit states that the learned counsel was suffering from kidney

diseases from 25.6.2005 to 1.8.2005 and during the said period was

being treated by Dr. Sony of Amravati. The learned counsel was

advised rest and could not attend the Court from 25.6.2005 to

10.7.2005.

3 I have no reason to disbelieve the statement on oath made

by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant before the Trial

Court. That apart, I am satisfied from a perusal of the order-sheet, that

except the date on which the order of dismissal came to be passed and

the date of hearing preceding, the appellant has diligently attended the

Court.

                                        3                                         apeal573of06



 4                 In   this   view   of   the   matter,   the   order   dismissing   the

complaint for want of prosecution is not sustainable and is set aside.

5 Registry is directed to immediately send back the records.

6 The learned Magistrate is directed to issue notices to the

parties and to finally decide the complaint within six months from the

receipt of the record.

7 The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

JUDGE

Belkhede