Jammu & Kashmir High Court
J.N Wadhera vs Uttam Singh on 28 August, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Crl LP(S) No. 5/2025
Reserved on: 22.08.2025
Pronounced on: 28.08.2025
J.N Wadhera .....Appellant(s)
q
Through: Mr. Sudesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate.
vs
Uttam Singh ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Vinod Abrol, Advocate.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
Crl LP(S) No. 5/2025
01. For the reasons stated in the application, coupled with submissions made at
bar, same is allowed and leave is granted to the applicant to file appeal against the
impugned order.
02. Crl LP(S) No. 5/2025 stands disposed of.
03. Registry to diarize the appeal.
CrlA (AS) No. 08/2025
04. With the consensus of learned counsels for the parties, appeal is taken on
board for consideration.
05. Impugned in the present appeal is an order dated 14.02.2025, passed by
learned Special Mobile Magistrate Electricity, Jammu ["the trial court"], whereby
the complaint titled "J.N. Wadhera vs. Uttam Singh", under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [N.I Act], preferred by the appellant came to be
dismissed for want of evidence.
06. The case of the appellant is that he preferred the aforesaid complaint
against the respondent in respect of four cheques; bearing numbers i) 009315
dated 04.08.2015 for Rs. 2,52,000/-; ii) 006900 dated 17.08.2015 for Rs.
1,35,000/-; iii) 009325 dated 08.08.2015 for Rs. 35,000/-; and iv) 009326 dated
08.08.2015 for Rs. 35,000/-, issued by the respondent, in his favour towards
discharge of legally enforceable debt. The respondent entered appearance in the
trial court, admitted his liability in his statement under Section 242 CrPC on
27.01.2020 and sought time to make the payment of the cheque amounts. It is
further case of the appellant that on 29.09.2022, the respondent furnished an
undertaking in the trial court to deposit cheque amounts in lump-sum within two
months. On 08.01.2025, trial court directed the parties to file affidavits indicating
the amount paid/received towards satisfaction of cheques liability, and posted the
matter for 08.02.2025.
07. It is submission of the appellant that in the first week of February, 2025, he
suffered serious ailment due to liver infection and remained under treatment at
Jammu and DMC, Ludhiana, therefore, he could not attend the court hearings
only on 08.02.2025 and 14.02.2025, when his complaint came to be dismissed for
want of evidence.
08. It is contention of the appellant that on 14.02.2025, initially, his case came
to be passed over by the trial court on the request of proxy counsel. On telephonic
instructions, the proxy counsel withdrew another case titled "J.N. Wadhera vs.
Bharamjot Kour" pending in the same court i.e. the trial court and he left the
court with the permission of the trial court. However, when his counsel returned
at 12.40 p.m., he came to know about the impugned order that his complaint was
dismissed, for want of evidence.
09. Appellant is aggrieved of the impugned order on the predominant premise
that since trial court had granted two months' time to the respondent to liquidate
the cheque amounts and parties were granted to file respective affidavits regarding
payments paid/received and case was never fixed for complainant's evidence,
dismissal of the complaint for want of evidence is unjustified.
10. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
11. While Mr. Sudesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, has
reiterated the grounds urged in the memo of appeal, Mr. Vinod Abrol, learned
counsel for the respondent has defended the impugned order by contending that
since appellant/complainant was continuously absent from the court proceedings,
trial court was left with no option but to dismiss the complaint and acquit the
respondent.
12. The complaint under Section 138 of N.I Act came to be preferred by the
appellant in the trial court on 05.10.2015, i.e. about 10 years back. The respondent
caused appearance on 21.01.2016, about 09 years back and sought numerous
opportunities to settle the matter with the complainant. The trial court record
would indicate that respondent succeeded in evading the court proceedings on
various occasions and his presence was secured by the trial court by issuance of
non-bailable warrants. His bail bonds also came to be forfeited at times. The
respondent, thus succeeded in procrastinating the trail to this length of time.
13. Be it noted that respondent-accused not only admitted his liability during
the trial, but also made certain payments i.e. Rs. 20,000/- on 03.03.2023, Rs.
5,000/- on 24.07.2023, Rs. 1,000/- on 25.01.2024 and Rs. 5,000/- on 02.04.2024,
towards discharge of the liability. On 29.09.2022 i.e. about three years back, the
respondent filed an undertaking to liquidate the entire liability within two months.
However, learned trail court failed to enforce the said undertaking, for the reasons
not coming forth from the trial court proceedings. A perusal of the medical record
placed on record by the appellant reflects that he was prevented by sufficient
reason for his absence on a couple of hearings in the trial court.
14. Though it is not feasible for the trial courts to prescribe a strict timeline for
the disposal of cases, however, it is the effective case management strategies
which help the courts to ensure disposal of cases within reasonable timeframes. A
judge cannot afford to act as a mere spectator. An active and participatory role in
the proceedings would certainly facilitate the court in exercising control over the
litigation timeline and contribute towards a qualitative and timely outcome for the
parties to the litigation. If the trial court record is glanced over, it appears that case
of the appellant has been dealt with and tried in a most insensitive and
unprofessional manner. Had learned trial court kept a track of the proceedings and
adhered to the timelines prescribed from time to time, the controversy would have
been given a quietus long back.
15. Having regard to the conspectus of the case and viewed from any angle, the
impugned order, vide which complaint of the appellant came to be dismissed, for
want of evidence, is found illegal and preposterous.
16. Thus considered, present appeal is allowed and impugned order is set-aside.
Consequently, complaint is restored to the files of the trial court and learned trail
court is directed to proceed with the trial and make an endeavour to dispose of the
case with expedition, preferably within a period of two months, from the date
copy of this order is made available.
17. Disposed of.
(Rajesh Sekhri)
Judge
Jammu
28.08.2025
Abinash
Whether the order is speaking? Yes
Whether the order is reportable? Yes
