Delhi District Court
Sanjeev Kumar Jain vs Sh. Dalip Pal on 7 October, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAMESH KUMAR,
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
NORTH-EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CR No. 137/2022
CNR No. DLNE01-002619-2022
In the matter of:
Sanjeev Kumar Jain
S/o Madan Lal Jain
Proprietor of M/s MK Enterprises
B2/1 Compound, Ganga Vihar,
Gokalpuri, Delhi-110094.
Present-B59, IGNOU Road,
Saidulajab,
New Delhi-110030.
........ Revisionist/complainant
Versus
Sh. Dalip Pal
S/o Not Known
Proprietor of M/s Pal and Pal Sons
Address : 195/2, Cosmo Estate,
Nandan Vihar, Patia,
Bhuvneshwar, Orissa.
2nd/Present Address :
M/s Sai Traders Plot No. M-13,
Nandan Enclave,
Housing Board Colony,
Kala Rahanga,
Bhuvneshwar,
Orissa-751024.
.......Respondent
Date of institution of case : 27.08.2022
Date of hearing of arguments : 07.10.2022
Date of passing of order : 07.10.2022
CR No.137/2022 Sanjeev Kumar Jain vs. Dalip Pal Page 1/7
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, UNDER SECTION 397 Cr.P.C,
AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER, DATED 24.01.2022 AND
25.02.2022, PASSED BY THE COURT OF SH. ARUN KUMAR
GARG, THE THEN LD. CMM, (NORTH-EAST DISTRICT),
KARKARDOOMA COURT, DELHI, IN CC No. 1291/2018, PS
Gokalpuri, TITLED AS "SANJEEV KUMAR JAIN V. DALIP
PAL."
JUDGMENT:
1. The present revision petition is preferred by Sanjeev Kumar Jain (hereinafter referred to as 'revisionist'), against the impugned order, dated 25.02.2022, passed by the Court of Sh. Arun Kumar Garg, the then Ld. CMM, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in CT Case No. 1291/2018, whereby the said complaint was dismissed in default for non- prosecution in terms of section 204 Cr.P.C.
2. It is stated, in the present revision petition, that the present complaint case was admitted, on 08.10.2018, and, revisionist engaged a new Counsel. After admission, the Ld. Court was pleased to direct the complainant to file PF for service of the respondent/accused and steps were taken, but, the service could not be effected on the respondent's old address i.e. Proprietor of M/s Pal and Pal Sons, 195/2, Cosmo Estate, Nandan Vihar, Patia, Bhuvneshwar, Orissa. Thereafter, the revisionist / complainant filed an affidavit, stating the new address of the accused i.e. M/s Sai Traders Plot No. M-13, Nandan Enclave, Housing Board Colony, Kala Rahanga, Bhuvneshwar, Orissa- 751024. Vide order, dated 04.02.2020, Court had directed to issue summons to accused on the abovesaid fresh address.
CR No.137/2022 Sanjeev Kumar Jain vs. Dalip Pal Page 2/7Thereafter, due to corona pandemic the proceedings were got conducted, through, video conferencing, but the main counsel did not join the proceedings, on 02.09.2020, and, 19.11.2020. Thereafter also, the main counsel was not present for physical hearing on 11.01.2021. On 08.03.2021, the main counsel for revisionist appeared and Ld. Court had directed to issue fresh summons to the respondent/ accused on filing of PF. On 09.08.2021 & 14.09.2021, proceedings were conducted through video conferencing, however, the main counsel did not appear. On 30.10.2021, main counsel appeared through VC, and Ld. Trial Court granted opportunity for filing PF in terms of previous order, subject to cost of Rs.1000/-. On 18.12.2021, revisionist appeared, alongwith, proxy counsel and Ld. Trial Court granted last opportunity, for service, subject to further cost of Rs.3000/-. On 24.12.2021, Ld. Trial Court further granted opportunity to file PF. On 24.01.2022 also, neither the main counsel nor the proxy counsel appeared, and Ld. Trial Court observed that summons were unserved as the address was not found to be correct, accordingly, the case was dismissed. It is stated that the revisionist had cooperated the main counsel and also told his counsel, about the digital address, of respondent /accused, so that the service be effected, either by physical mode or the digital mode. The revisionist came to know, from his reliable sources, that the second address of the respondent is very much correct and the respondent has been managing to avoid the service. That the main counsel of the revisionist started sending proxy counsels in the present matter, without justifications and, due to this reason, without any fault of the revisionist, the Ld. Trial Court imposed costs and also, dismissed the case. It is prayed that the impugned order, dated 25.02.2022, be set aside.
CR No.137/2022 Sanjeev Kumar Jain vs. Dalip Pal Page 3/73. In the grounds of filing the present revision petition, it is mentioned that impugned order, dated 25.02.2022, is bad, in the eyes of law as well as facts, as the Ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned order, overlooking the purposes for which the Act was enacted and also the stringent provisions of the Act. The fact is that the cheques are issued to facilitate commercial transactions. There was delay in giving address of the respondent, who is in Orissa, and the revisionist complainant is working and residing at Delhi, and, at least Dasti summons ought to be given for effecting service upon the respondent /accused, prior to observing that the case deserves to be dismissed, on the grounds of non- prosecution. The Main Counsel, instead of appearing before Ld. Trial Court, used to send other counsels and he is equally responsible for passing such impugned orders, mechanically, without looking into the merits of the case.
4. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the revisionist, and, carefully perused the record file and have gone through the material placed on record.
5. Relevant portion of the impugned order, dated 24.02.2022, is reproduced as under :
" V/C hearing is conducted as per Order No. 1/RG/DHC/2022 dated 12.01.2022 read with order No. 896/RG/DHC/2021 dated 30.12.2021 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and order no. 7462-7474/Judl./NE/KKD/Delhi dated 31.12.2021 of Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge, NE.
24.01.2022.
Pr.: None for complainant despite repeated CR No.137/2022 Sanjeev Kumar Jain vs. Dalip Pal Page 4/7 calls.
None for accused.
Summons to the accused issued in terms of previous order have been received back un-served with the report that the address mentioned in the summons was not found to be correct. Last and final opportunity is thus given to the complainant to take fresh steps for summoning of accused by filing fresh PF & RC alongwith fresh address of the accused within a period of two weeks from today subject to cost of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the complainant with DLSA (NE).
Put up for appearance of both the parties, filing of fresh address and for further proceedings on 25.02.2022.
Copy of this order be uploaded on the CIS Server."
6. Relevant portion of the impugned order, dated 25.02.2022, is reproduced as under:
"Physical hearing is conducted in terms of Order No. 67/RG/DHC/2022 dated 11.02.2022 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and order no. 478-490/Judl./NE/KKD/Delhi dated 14.01.2022 of Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge/NE.
25.02.2022 Pr.: Sh. Sandeep Singh, proxy counsel for Sh. Hemant Chaudhary, Counsel for the complainant.
As per report of the Ahlmad, CR No.137/2022 Sanjeev Kumar Jain vs. Dalip Pal Page 5/7 complainant has failed to take steps in terms of order dated 24.01.2022. Looking into previous conduct of the complainant, it appears that complainant is not interested in prosecution of the present complaint. The complaint is accordingly, dismissed in default for non-prosecution in terms of Section 204 Cr.P.C.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Copy of the order be uploaded on the CIS Server."
7. Perusal of the record reflects that on 24.01.2022, proceedings were conducted through video conferencing and final opportunity was granted to the complainant to take fresh steps for summoning of accused by filing fresh PF and RC alongwith fresh address of the accused within a period of two weeks, subject to cost of Rs.5000/- to be deposited by the complainant with DLSA (N/E) District and matter was listed for appearance of both the parties, filing fresh address and for further proceedings on 25.02.2022.
8. Perusal of impugned order dated 25.02.2022 reflects that Ld. Trial Court dismissed the complaint in default due to non- prosecution in terms of Section 204 Cr.P.C., looking into previous conduct of the complainant, as the complainant failed to take steps for service of accused / respondent in terms of order dated 24.01.2022 and file was directed to be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.
9. Keeping in view the the facts and circumstances of the CR No.137/2022 Sanjeev Kumar Jain vs. Dalip Pal Page 6/7 present matter, and the fact that address of respondent is of Orissa and due to corona pandemic also, one opportunity is granted to the revisionist. Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed subject to cost of Rs.5000/-. Revisionist is directed to deposit the cost at DLSA, North East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, within one week from today and deposit the receipt before the Ld. Trial Court on the next date of hearing.
10. Revisionist is directed to appear before the Ld. Trial Court on 29.10.2022.
Copy of the order alongwith Trial Court record be sent to the Court concerned.
Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7th OCTOBER, 2022 Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR RAMESH Location: KARKARDOOMA KUMAR COURTS, DELHI Date: 2022.10.07 16:48:20 +0530 (RAMESH KUMAR) PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE NORTH EAST DISTRICT KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI CR No.137/2022 Sanjeev Kumar Jain vs. Dalip Pal Page 7/7