______________________________________________________________________ vs Sh. Pradeep Alias ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2696 HP

                                          1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA




                                                                                            .
                                                  Cr. MP(M) No. 2060 of 2020 & Cr.





                                                  Appeal No. 119 of 2021

                              Date of Decision: 22.04.2021





______________________________________________________________________
Mohinder Kumar Saini                      ....Applicant/appellant

                                                  Vs.





Sh. Pradeep alias                                                      .....Non­applicant/respondent.

Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge

Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.

For the applicant/appellant : Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate.

For the non­applicant/
respondent:                                       Ms. Ranjeeta Mittal, Advocate.



Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral):

Cr. MP(M) No. 2060 of 2020

Heard. In view of the orders passed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court with respect to limitation during COVID­19 pandemic,

the appeal is within limitation. Accordingly, leave to appeal is granted.

Appeal be registered. Application stands disposed of.

Cr. Appeal No. 119 of 2021

2. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, this

Court is of the view that there is no infirmity with the order, which has

been passed by the learned Court below, because as neither the

1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?

complainant nor his counsel chose to appear before the Court on

.

20.02.2020, but natural, the Court was having no option but to dismiss

the petition for non­prosecution.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is

that the learned Court below could not have had dismissed the petition

for non­prosecution on the ground that the complainant was not present

in the Court. There is no force in the contention of learned counsel for the

appellant, for the reason that it is not as if learned Court below has

dismissed the case for non­prosecution on the ground that the

complainant was not present in the Court. In other words, it is not a case

where the complainant was represented by the learned counsel, yet the

learned Court below chose to dismiss the case for non­prosecution, on

the ground that the complainant was not present, by ignoring the

presence of learned counsel. It is reiterated that in the present case,

neither the complainant nor his counsel was present and it was in these

circumstances, that the case was dismissed for non­prosecution by the

learned Court below.

4. Be that as it may, in the interest of justice, as a matter

of indulgence, to ensure that the appellant is satisfied that his complaint

is heard on merit, the appeal is disposed of with the direction that in the

event of the appellant paying costs to the tune of Rs.25,000/­, i.e.,

Rs.15,000/­ in the Advocates Welfare Fund of District Mandi Courts Bar

Association and Rs.10,000/­ to the respondent, the order dated

.

20.02.2020 shall stand revoked and the complaint will be heard on merit.

It is further clarified that the liberty granted by this Court shall be

effective only if the cost is deposited by the appellant on or before 30 th

May, 2021 and thereafter, an application is filed by appending receipt

qua payment of costs before the learned Trial Court.

April 22, 2021
                     r           to               (Ajay Mohan Goel)
                                                       Judge

    (bhupender)