Delhi High Court
Sumeer Mahajan vs Rajreshwar Singh & Anr on 26 February, 2020
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: February 26, 2020
+ CRL.L.P. 114/2018
+ CRL.L.P. 115/2018
+ CRL.L.P. 116/2018
+ CRL.L.P. 117/2018
+ CRL.L.P. 118/2018
SUMEER MAHAJAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pramod Kumar Ahuja,
Advocate
Versus
RAJESHWAR SINGH & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Prabhakar Pandey, Advocate
for respondent No.1
Ms. Priynaka Rai, Advocate for
respondent No.2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESH SETHI
JUDGMENT
BRIJESH SETHI, J (oral)
+ CRL.L.P. 114/2018
+ CRL.L.P. 115/2018
+ CRL.L.P. 116/2018
+ CRL.L.P. 117/2018
+ CRL.L.P. 118/2018
Vide above captioned five petitions, petitioner is seeking leave to
file appeal against the order dated 13th December, 2017 passed by the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate, vide which respondents have been
acquitted in the complaint case under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 by the petitioner. Vide impugned order of 13th
December, 2017, petitioner's complaints have been dismissed for non
appearance by the learned trial court while observing that non appearance
of petitioner on that day shows that petitioner is not interested in pursuing
the matter.
At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner submits that non
appearance of petitioner before the learned trial court on 13 th December,
2017 was neither deliberate nor intentional and in these circumstances,
the petitions be allowed in the interest of justice.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has opposed these
petitions submitting that the impugned order suffers from no infirmity
and these petitions deserve dismissal.
Heard.
The submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties have
been heard and in view of the fact that non-appearance of the petitioner
was neither intentional nor deliberate, this Court finds it to be a fit case
for grant of leave.
In view of aforesaid, these petitions are allowed and are directed to
be registered as an appeal accordingly.
Crl.Appeal No.------
Crl.Appeal No.------
Crl.Appeal No.------
Crl.Appeal No.------
Crl.Appeal No.------ (Registry to assign numbers)
Admit.
Mr. Prabhakar Pandey, Advocate for respondent No.1 and
Ms.Priyanka Rai, Advocate for respondent No.2, accept notice of
admission.
The above captioned five appeals have been preferred against the
order dated 13th December, 2017 passed by the learned trial court vide
which appellant's complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 have been dismissed for non appearance while
observing that appellant had not been appearing before the learned trial
court and seems to be not interested in further prosecution of his
complaints.
At the hearing, learned counsel for the appellant submits that in all,
twenty three complaints have been filed by the petitioner against the
respondent and these complaints were listed on 3rd October, 2017 before
the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and since the complainant had not
appeared on the said date, the matters were adjourned to 11 th January,
2018. It is stated that the appellant was under the impression that all the
twenty three complaints were adjourned for 11th January, 2018 and was
unaware that the five complaints were adjourned for 13th December, 2017
and on the said date, those five complaints were dismissed for non
appearance of appellant/complainant. It is further submitted that date of
13th December, 2017 was not in the knowledge of appellant and his non
appearance was, therefore, neither deliberate nor intentional. It is further
submitted by learned counsel for appellant that respondent No.1 was
already declared proclaimed offender before the learned trial court and
great prejudice would be caused to appellant if respondents are let free for
the offence in question. It is further submitted by learned counsel for
appellant that it is a case of wrong noting of date and these appeals are
supported by affidavits of appellant and, therefore in the interest of
justice, impugned order of 13th December, 2017 be set aside and
appellant's complaints be restored.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondents has opposed these appeals on the ground that the impugned
order suffers from no illegality or infirmity.
After hearing learned counsel for both the parties, this Court finds
that non-appearance of appellant before the learned trial court on 3rd
October, 2017 and 13th December, 2017 was neither deliberate nor
intentional but because of wrong noting of date and for this lapse,
appellant should not be made to suffer. Moreover, this Court is of the
opinion that it is in the interest of justice if the cases are heard and
decided on merit rather than dismissing the same for non appearance.
In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order
dated 13th December, 2017 passed by the learned trial court dismissing
appellant's complaints under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 for non appearance, is set aside and the complaints are restored to
their original position.
Let the parties appear before the learned trial court on 31st March,
2020, for further proceedings in accordance with the law.
With directions as aforesaid, the above captioned five appeals
stand disposed of accordingly.
(BRIJESH SETHI)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 26, 2020
r
