Delhi High Court
Shri S.C.Rastogi vs M/S.Ridhi Enterprises & Anr on 25 July, 2008
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Crl.M.C No.2356/2008
% Date of decision : 25.07.2008
Shri S.C.Rastogi ....... Petitioner
Through: Mr.D.K. Rustagi, Advocate.
Versus
M/s.Ridhi Enterprises & Anr ......... Respondents
Through : Nemo.
CORAM :-
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may YES
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported NO
in the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
The petitioner has challenged the order of learned Metropolitan
Magistrate dated 29th April, 2008 fixing the next date as 26th November,
2008 for Complainant's Evidence.
The petitioner impugns the order on the ground that the Revision
Petition was filed by the respondent, being Criminal Revision No.
1/2007, which was disposed of by Sh. H.S. Sharma, Additional
Sessions Judge by order dated 7th February, 2008 holding that since it
is an old complaint as it was filed on 19th May, 1994 and as it pertains
to dishonour of cheques, the learned trial Court should make earnest
endeavour to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible and
preferably within six months from 14th October, 2008.
Though, the Revisional Court had observed that the learned trial
Court should make earnest endeavour to dispose of the matter as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from 14th
February, 2008, however, the said order cannot be construed as the
direction given to the learned trial Court to dispose of the complaint of
the petitioner positively within six months.
Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that lakhs of Criminal
complaint regarding dishonour of cheques are pending before the trial
Court. It has also come to the notice that in some of the Courts dates
after twelve to sixteen months are being given in the cases under
section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act.
In the case of the petitioner, the matter was adjourned on 29th
April, 2008 for the Complainant's Evidence to 26th November, 2008
after the order by the Revisional Court dated 14th February, 2008 was
passed. In the circumstances it cannot be inferred that the order of the
Revisional Court has been ignored and violated by the MM. The date
has been given by the MM considering the order of the Revisional Court
and the pendency of cases before him.
In the circumstances, I do not find any such irregularity or
manifest error for the correction of which this Court should exercise its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The
learned Metropolitan Magistrate has fixed the case for Complainant's
Evidence after considering the pendency of various matters before him
and it will not be appropriate for this Court to direct the trial Court to
dispose it within six months. If it is not possible for the trial Court
considering the pendency of the matters before it, to dispose of the
matter within six months, it will not be appropriate to direct him to
decide it within six months. If other cases are pending which also
require early disposal, preference to the case of the petitioner cannot be
given without hearing the other parties. In the circumstances, it will not
be appropriate to give any direction to the MM to dispose of the matter
within six months.
In these facts and circumstances, the petition is without any
merits and is, therefore, dismissed.
July 25th , 2008 ANIL KUMAR, J.
j
