Vijay Manchanda vs State Of Nct Delhi & Anr
2016 Latest Caselaw 2357 Del

#9
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                  Date of decision: 23.03.2016

+       CRL.L.P. 556/2015

        VIJAY MANCHANDA                                   ..... Petitioner
                    Through             Mr. Suhail Malik, Advocate

                           versus

        STATE OF NCT DELHI & ANR                 ..... Respondents

Through Mr. M.S. Oberoi, APP for the State Mr. Deepak Kohli, Adv. for R-2

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)

1. The present is an application under Section 378 praying for grant of

leave to appeal against the impugned order dated 08.04.2015 whereby the

criminal complaint being CC No. 165/2014 filed by the leave petitioner

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 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. /2016 (To be Numbered)

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

appeal is heard and disposed of by this order.

2. A perusal of the impugned order dated 8th April, 2015 discloses that

the complainant (appellant herein) has been remiss in prosecuting his

complaint filed before the concerned Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts,

Delhi. Consequently, since the complainant, despite repeated opportunities,

failed to remain present, the complaint has been dismissed in default.

3. Mr. Deepak Kohli, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondent no. 2 states that he would have no objection to the subject

complaint being remitted back to the concerned Magistrate for further

proceedings in accordance with law, if this Court were to award costs for the

inconvenience and expenses caused to the respondent no. 2.

4. In the present case, it is observed that the complaint has not been

heard or adjudicated on merits.

5. In view of the foregoing, the present appeal is allowed. The complaint

must be adjudicated on its merits and an opportunity to do so must be

granted to the complainant.

6. Resultantly, the complaint case being CC No. 165/2014 titled as Vijay

Manchanda vs. Surinder Kumar Bhola is restored to the file of the concerned

Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, subject to payment of Rs.10,000/-

as costs to respondent No. 2, to be paid within a period of four weeks from

today.

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

complainant to prosecute his case before the concerned Magistrate. No

further opportunity shall be granted.

8. List the matter before the concerned Magistrate on 2nd May, 2016.

9. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

10. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Magistrate,

Karkardooma Courts, Delhi for necessary compliance.

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J MARCH 23, 2016 sd