Delhi High Court
Anil Goel vs S.S. Pawar on 7 October, 2010
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
02
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.L.P. 339/2010
ANIL GOEL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Bhupesh Narula, Adv.
Versus
SS PAWAR ..... Respondent
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 07.10.2010
Crl.M.A.Nos.15150/2010 & 15151/2010
1 For the reasons given in the applications, delay of 14 days in filing
and 15 days in re-filing is condoned subject to payment of costs of
Rs. 1,000/-. Costs will be deposited with Delhi High Court Legal
Services Committee within a period of one week.
Crl.L.P.339/2010
2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant
was not well on 11th May, 2010 and, therefore, he did not appear before
CRL.L.P.No.339/2010 Page 1
the court. Photocopy of the certificates issued by the Consultant
Orthodontist, Dental Surgeon and Implantologist have been enclosed.
Application for leave to appeal is allowed. The Registry will number the
appeal.
Crl.Appeal No.................(to be numbered by the Registry)
3 As limited point arises for consideration, the appeal is taken up for
hearing and disposal today itself.
4 Lower court records have been perused. The petitioner herein had
filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 for dishonour of cheques amounting to Rs. 3,50,000/-. On the basis
of pre-summoning evidence, vide order dated 31st January, 2008, the
respondent-accused was summoned for 22nd September, 2008. Process
issued was not received back and on 22nd September, 2008 fresh
summons were directed to be issued for 13th April, 2009. On 13th April,
2009, also the process issued was not received back and fresh summons
were directed to be issued for 23rd November, 2009. On 23rd November,
2009 costs of Rs.500/- was imposed as steps for summoning the
respondent were not taken by the complainant. It was directed that
service should be effected through speed post, courier etc. on steps being
taken within 15 days. On 11th May, 2010, the complaint was dismissed
for non appearance of the complainant and for non-prosecution as costs
was not paid and steps for summoning of the respondent-accused were
CRL.L.P.No.339/2010 Page 2
not taken.
5 The petitioner along with the petition has filed receipt for payment
of costs of Rs.500/-. The said costs was paid on 26th July, 2010. The
petitioner has also filed documents in the form of prescriptions of
Consultant Orthodontist, Dental Surgeon and Implantologist in support
of the contention that the complainant was unwell and, therefore, there
was some delay in payment of costs. Same explanation is given for non-
appearance of the complainant.
6 The complaint is at the initial stage and the respondent-accused
has not been served. Order sheets reveals that on two occasions, the
petitioner has taken steps for service of the respondent. However, there
is laxity and default on the part of the petitioner, as cost was not paid and
steps for service were not taken on two occasions. The present appeal is
allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.2,500/- to the Delhi Legal
Services Committee. Costs will be paid by 9th November, 2010.
However in case of non-payment of costs by the said date, the present
petition will be treated as dismissed.
7 Subject to deposit of abovesaid costs of Rs.2,500/- along with
costs of Rs.1,000/- imposed while disposing of Crl.M.A.Nos.15150/2010
& 15151/2010, the impugned order dated 11th May, 2010 is set
aside/quashed. The complaint is restored to its original number. The
petitioner will ensure that he does not commit defaults in future.
CRL.L.P.No.339/2010 Page 3
8 The petitioner will show receipt of payment of costs to the trial
court on 10th November, 2010. On the said date the appellant will appear
before the trial court for further proceedings.
DASTI.
OCTOBER 07, 2010 SANJIV KHANNA, J.
NA/J
CRL.L.P.No.339/2010 Page 4
