Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amar Nath Amar vs Parshant Sharma on 14 December, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161681
2023:PHHC:161681
227 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-A-905-2019
Date of decision: 14.12.2023
AMAR NATH AMAR
...Appellant
V/s
PARSHANT SHARMA
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Vaneet Garg, Advocate
for the Appellant.
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (ORAL)
1. The present application has been filed under Section 378(4) of
Cr.P.C. seeking grant of leave to filfe the appeal against the order of
acquittal dated 14.12.2018 passed by learend Judicial Magistrate Ist
Class, Yamuna Nagar Jagadhri.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant inter alia contends that the
appellant had been regularly appearing before the learned trial Court.
The appellant had led the preliminary evidence, on the basis of which,
respondent was summoned to face trial for an offence punishable under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner appeared on
29.11.2018 and thereafter, the counsel for the appellant has not informed
with regard to status of the trial as to when the case is listed. The
appellant came to know that his counsel has neither appeared on his
behalf before the trial Court nor informed the appellant about the
proceedings of the case and as such in the absence of the appellant or his
counsel, learned trial Court has dismissed the case for non-prosecution.
Any order dismissing the complaint for non-prosecution would amount
to acquittal in terms of Section 256 of Cr.P.C. The appellant has not
absented himself intentionally, rather he could not appear on two dates
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161681
2023:PHHC:161681
before the trial Court due to mis-communication between him and his
counsel.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and after
perusing the record, it transpires that sufficient cause has been shown by
the appellant for his non appearance before the learned trial Court and
merely the absence of the appellant on two dates would not justify the
dismissal of the complaint for want of prosecution. The impugned order
dated 14.12.2018 indicates that the notice issued to the complainant
received back with the report that he was not found residing on the
address and in the absence of valid service, learned trial Court ought not
to have dismissed the complaint for want of prosecution. The Hon'ble
Apex Court in Mohd. Azeem Vs. A. Venkatesh and Another (2002) 7
SCC 726, Aseem Shabanli Merchant Vs. Brij Mehra and Another,
(2005) 11 SCC 412, Narender Parashar Vs. Jagbir Singh, 2009 (3)
RCR (Criminal) 246, Neh Pal Sharma Vs. Bijender Singh 2009(2)
RCR Criminal 751 and Purushotam Mantri Vs. Vinod Tandon @
Hari Nath Tandon 2009(1) RCR (Criminal) 442, Om Parkash Vs.
M/s Golden Foresh India Ltd. 2008(4) RCR (Criminal) 445 also
affirmed the aforesaid fact. I have gone through all these judgments
which full apply to the facts of the present case.
4. Therefore, from the above, I find merit in this appeal and the
same is allowed subject to payment of costs amounting to Rs. 5,000/- to
be paid to the respondent. The impugned order passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Yamuna Nagar Jagadhri, dismissing the
complaint in default is set aside.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161681
2023:PHHC:161681
5. The complaint is ordered to be restored at the stage from where
it was dismissed by the trial Court. The trial Court is directed to proceed
further as per law after giving notice to the parties concerned.
6. The appeal is decided in limine in order to saved the precious
time of the Court and litigation cost of the respondent.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
14.12.2023
Ajay Goswami
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161681
3 of 3
