M/S Noida Security Printers Pvt ... vs Aggarwal Merchants Pvt Ltd & Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 5680 Del

#20
         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                 Date of decision: 06.08.2015

CRL.L.P. 375/2015

M/S NOIDA SECURITY PRINTERS PVT LTD                         ..... Petitioner

                           Through:     Mr. Sushil Dutt Salwan and Ms.
                                        Latika Dutta, Advocates

                           versus

AGGARWAL MERCHANTS PVT LTD & ORS                            ..... Respondents

                           Through:     Mr. Arun Kumar Gupta and Mr.
                                        Achal Gupta, Advocates

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)

1. The present is an application under section 378(4) read with section

482 Cr.P.C., 1973 praying for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned

order dated 04.03.2015 whereby the criminal complaint under section 138 of

the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed by the petitioner was dismissed

for non-appearance.

2. Since the complaint case filed on behalf of the leave petitioner has not

been decided on merits, in my view, the leave to appeal as prayed for has to

be granted. The leave petition is accordingly allowed. The leave petition be

registered as appeal.

CRL.A. No. (To be Numbered)

3. With the consent of counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, the

appeal is heard and disposed of by this order.

4. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that the complainant has

been remiss in prosecuting his complaint filed before the Magistrate.

Consequently, since the complainant, despite repeated opportunity failed to

prosecute its case, the complaint has been dismissed in default.

5. Mr. Salwan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant

states that inadvertently they recorded the next date of hearing in the

complaint case incorrectly, due to which reason there was nobody present on

behalf of the complainant before the Court of the learned Magistrate on the

date when the impugned order was passed.

6. Counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents opposes this

appeal.

7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the plea urged on behalf of

the appellant seems to be genuine. The complaint has not been heard or

adjudicated on its merits. As a consequence, in my opinion, an opportunity

must be granted to the complainant to prosecute the complaint before the

Magistrate. The appeal is consequently allowed. The complaint case being

CC No.261/01/12 'M/s Noida Security Perinters Pvt. Ltd. vs. Aggarwal

Merchants Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.' is restored to the file of the concerned

Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi subject to payment of

Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) as costs to the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

8. It is made clear that this is a final opportunity granted to the

complainant to prosecute his case. No further opportunity shall be granted.

The Magistrate shall ensure that the case is determined as expeditiously as

possible.

9. List the matter before the concerned Magistrate on 07.09.2015.

10. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

11. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Magistrate for necessary

compliance.

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J AUGUST 06, 2015 dn