Delhi High Court
Manjeet Singh vs Manoj Kumar on 6 March, 2024
Author: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Bench: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 06.03.2024
+ CRL.L.P. 389/2022
MANJEET SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amarjeet Singh Sahni and
Ms. Vanshita, Advocates.
versus
MANOJ KUMAR ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
% JUDGMENT
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J (ORAL)
None appears on behalf of the respondent despite service.
Considering the facts and circumstances and for the reasons stated in
the application, the delay of 86 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
Application stands disposed of.
Leave granted.
Criminal Leave Petition be registered as Criminal Appeal.
CRL.A............/2024 (to be numbered)
1. In brief, CRL.L.P. has been preferred on behalf of the appellant
challenging order dated 15.11.2021 passed by learned MM-05, N.I. Act,
New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, whereby, the
complaint filed on behalf of the appellant was dismissed for non-prosecution
as well as in default.
2. In brief, as per case of appellant, a complaint under Section 138 of N.I.
Act was preferred on behalf of the appellant (complainant before learned
Trial Court), in which, during the course of proceedings, a settlement was
reached between the parties on 14.09.2016. The respondent thereby agreed to
pay a total sum of Rs. 3,48,000/- in installments w.e.f. 05.10.2016 to
05.03.2018. Out of settled amount, respondent paid only an amount of Rs.
l,00,000/-, but failed to make the balance payment as scheduled.
3. It is further the case of appellant that vide impugned order, learned
MM dismissed the complaint on account of non-appearance of the
complainant without considering the fact that the case was fixed only for the
purpose of making of payment on behalf of the respondent. It is also
submitted that earlier, the coercive process had been issued against the
respondent, since he failed to appear and honour the settlement. Further the
non-appearance of appellant on earlier two dates is stated to be on account of
Covid pandemic.
4. This Court is of the considered opinion that learned MM ought to have
considered that the matter was merely pending for the purpose of compliance
of settlement and payment of installments by the respondent. As such, the
presence of complainant could have been exempted on the aforesaid date.
There is nothing on record to reflect that complainant / appellant had been
trying to protract the proceedings unnecessarily or with any ulterior motive.
Considering the facts and circumstances, impugned order dated
15.11.2021 passed by learned Trial Court dismissing the complaint on
account of non-prosecution is set aside. Complaint proceedings are further
restored to its original number and are directed to be listed before learned
Trial Court on 21.03.2024. Learned Trial Court shall proceed with the matter
from the stage at which the proceedings were pending.
Appellant/complainant is accordingly directed to appear before learned Trial
Court on 21.03.2024.
Appeal is accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed of.
A copy of this order be forwarded to learned Trial Court for
information and compliance.
(ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA)
JUDGE
MARCH 06, 2024/R
