Amrit vs Jeevan
2022 Latest Caselaw 2786 Chatt

                                                1



                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                               CRMP No. 2600 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), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
                                                                                   ---- Petitioner
                                             Versus
       Jeevan S/o Late Shri Balasaheb Varudkar Aged About 42 Years R/o Mamta
        Nagar ,ekta, Chowk Gali No. 5, Rajnandgaon ,police Station Rajanandgaon
        Chhattisgarh At Present Subhash Ward Bhatapara ,police Station Bhatapara
        ,urban District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh (Complant) (The Status Of
        The Parties Are Wrongly Mentioned In The Head Of The Order Impugned ), District
        : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
                                                                          ---- Respondent
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Tripathi, Advocate

For Respondent : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

Order On Board 27.04.2022

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 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 pawan