Delhi High Court
M/S Noida Security Printers Pvt Ltd vs Aggarwal Merchants Pvt Ltd & Ors on 6 August, 2015
Author: Siddharth Mridul
Bench: Siddharth Mridul
#20
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 06.08.2015
CRL.L.P. 375/2015
M/S NOIDA SECURITY PRINTERS PVT LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sushil Dutt Salwan and Ms.
Latika Dutta, Advocates
versus
AGGARWAL MERCHANTS PVT LTD & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Arun Kumar Gupta and Mr.
Achal Gupta, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
1. The present is an application under section 378(4) read with section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 praying for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned order dated 04.03.2015 whereby the criminal complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed by the petitioner was dismissed for non-appearance.
2. Since the complaint case filed on behalf of the leave petitioner has not been decided on merits, in my view, the leave to appeal as prayed for has to CRL.L.P.375/2015 Page 1 of 3 be granted. The leave petition is accordingly allowed. The leave petition be registered as appeal.
CRL.A. No. (To be Numbered)
3. With the consent of counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, the appeal is heard and disposed of by this order.
4. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that the complainant has been remiss in prosecuting his complaint filed before the Magistrate. Consequently, since the complainant, despite repeated opportunity failed to prosecute its case, the complaint has been dismissed in default.
5. Mr. Salwan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant states that inadvertently they recorded the next date of hearing in the complaint case incorrectly, due to which reason there was nobody present on behalf of the complainant before the Court of the learned Magistrate on the date when the impugned order was passed.
6. Counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents opposes this appeal.
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the plea urged on behalf of the appellant seems to be genuine. The complaint has not been heard or CRL.L.P.375/2015 Page 2 of 3 adjudicated on its merits. As a consequence, in my opinion, an opportunity must be granted to the complainant to prosecute the complaint before the Magistrate. The appeal is consequently allowed. The complaint case being CC No.261/01/12 'M/s Noida Security Perinters Pvt. Ltd. vs. Aggarwal Merchants Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.' is restored to the file of the concerned Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) as costs to the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
8. It is made clear that this is a final opportunity granted to the complainant to prosecute his case. No further opportunity shall be granted. The Magistrate shall ensure that the case is determined as expeditiously as possible.
9. List the matter before the concerned Magistrate on 07.09.2015.
10. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
11. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Magistrate for necessary compliance.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J AUGUST 06, 2015 dn CRL.L.P.375/2015 Page 3 of 3