Delhi District Court
P.V. Raghu S/O P. Vasudeva Rao vs Triveni Infrastructure Development ... on 3 July, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. R.K. GAUBA: DISTRICT JUDGE
(SOUTH DISTRICT) & ASJ/I/C (SOUTH & SOUTHEAST):
SAKET NEW DELHI
(1) Criminal Revision No. 191/2012
ID No.: 02406R0114152012
(2) Criminal Revision No. 192/2012
ID No.: 02406R0114142012
(3) Criminal Revision No. 193/2012
ID No.: 02406R0114132012
P.V. Raghu s/o P. Vasudeva Rao
R/o 17C, Vijay Mandal Enclave
New Delhi 110017. ..... Revisionist.
Versus
1. Triveni Infrastructure Development Company Pvt. Ltd.
A27, IInd floor, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate
Mathura Road, New Delhi 110044.
2. Sumit Mittal (Chairman)
Triveni Infrastructure Development Company Pvt. Ltd.
A27, IInd floor, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate
Mathura Road, New Delhi 110044
Crl Revs. No. 191/12, 192/12 and 193/12 Page 1 of 5
3. Madhur Mittal (Managing Director)
Triveni Infrastructure Development Company Pvt. Ltd.
A27, IInd floor, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate
Mathura Road, New Delhi 110044.
4. Mr. Gupta (Authorized Signatory)
Triveni Infrastructure Development Company Pvt. Ltd.
A27, IInd floor, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate
Mathura Road, New Delhi 110044.
5. State /Govt. of NCT of Delhi
through Additional Public Prosecutor. ..... Respondents
Instituted on: 15.05.2012
Judgment reserved on: 03.07.2012
Judgment pronounced on :03.07.2012
J U D G M E N T
1. These three criminal revision petitions are directed against identically worded three separate orders, each passed on 13.02.2012 by Ms. Charu Gupta, Metropolitan Magistrate1(Negotiable Instruments Act) (SouthEast) on the files of criminal complaint cases no. 5525/11, 5523/11 and 5524/11 registered on the basis of three separate complaints presented on 18.09.2010 by the petitioner seeking prosecution Crl Revs. No. 191/12, 192/12 and 193/12 Page 2 of 5 of the opposite party for offences under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act respecting different cheques. Vide the impugned orders the criminal complaints were dismissed for nonprosecution.
2. For assistance, State is impleaded as proforma respondents. Since opposite party had not yet been summoned by the trial court by the time of the impugning the order, they need not be noticed.
3. I have heard Sh. Bipin Kalappa, advocate for the petitioner and Sh. A. T. Ansari, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. I have gone through the trial court record.
4. Though the absence on 13.02.2012 has to be seen against the backdrop of absence on behalf of the complaint on certain previous dates, it will be too harsh to deny the right of prosecution to the complaint to pursue his complaint when the cause for default is attributable more to the counsel.
5. The impugned orders suffer from one basic impropriety. It is not a case where, despite opportunity, the petitioner had not led any evidence. The proceedings recorded on 24.02.2011 do indicate that affidavits in evidence had been filed by the Crl Revs. No. 191/12, 192/12 and 193/12 Page 3 of 5 complaint. The learned Magistrate, however, felt it necessary to call upon the complainant to file additional affidavits regarding pendency of other cases against the opposite party. If the said order was not complied with inspite of repeated opportunities, the learned Magistrate could have taken appropriate view drawing necessary inference on that account. She could not have ignored the affidavits on record for purposes of inquiry under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Since the complainant had led evidence by way of affidavit in support of the criminal complaint, it was incumbent on the part of the Magistrate to apply mind to the material that had come on record for purposes of deciding the future course of action particularly for purposes of Section 204 Cr.P.C.
6. While the criminal revision petitions at hand deserve to be allowed and the proceedings on the criminal complaints restored on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate, it cannot be ignored that the petitioner has not been diligent in prosecuting the complaints properly/expeditiously. A lot of time of the criminal court has been wasted on account of opportunities given not being utilized. In this view, the revision petitions are Crl Revs. No. 191/12, 192/12 and 193/12 Page 4 of 5 allowed, subject to costs of Rs. 2000/ (Rs. two thousand) each payable to District Legal Services Authority (South) within a week from today.
7. The criminal complaints are restored on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate who shall proceed thereupon further in accordance with law, subject to the proof of deposit of the costs.
8. Petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate for further proceedings on 23.07.2012.
9. The judgment has been passed on the record of revision petition no. 191/2012. The reader is directed to place an attested copy of the judgment on the record of revision petitions no. 192/2012 and 193/2012.
10.The trial court records along with copy of this judgment be sent back.
11.Files of revision petitions be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court today
on this 03rd day of July, 2012 (R.K. GAUBA)
ASJ/I/C (South & South East)
Saket/New Delhi
Crl Revs. No. 191/12, 192/12 and 193/12 Page 5 of 5