Delhi District Court
State Bank Of India vs Promilla Tomar & Anr on 7 May, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SHRI I.S. MEHTA
DJ- & ASJ I/C DWARKA COURTS
NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision No.129/2011
State Bank of India ....Revisionist
Versus
Promilla Tomar & Anr. ....Respondent
Date of Institution : 05.05.2011
Date of Arguments : 07.05.2011
Date of Decision : 07.05.2011
Appearance: Sh. M.P Mittal, Ld. counsel for the revisionist.
ORDER
This is a revision petition filed by the revisionist against the order dated 23.3.2011, passed by Sh. Navjeet Budhiraja, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, dismissing the complaint of the complainant for non filing of PF under Section 204 Cr.P.C and non appearance of the complainant under Section 256 Cr.P.C.
2. Aggrieved from the impugned order, revisionist has filed present revision petition on the ground that the impugned order is bad in law and the non appearance of the revisionist/complainant and non filing of PF was neither intentional nor deliberate and prays that impugned order be set aside.
3. I have heard Sh. M.P Mittal, Ld. counsel for the revisionist and perused the record, including the impugned order.
4. Ld. counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the CR No.129/2011 Page 1/3 complainant failed to appear before the court below on 23.3.2011, as on 19.2.2011, inadvertently he noted the next date of hearing as 24.3.2011 instead of 23.3.2011. Ld counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that when he appeared before the court below on 24.3.2011, he came to know that the case was dismissed under Section 204 Cr.P.C and 256 Cr.P.C Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that due to wrong noting of the date, PF could not be filed for 23.3.2011. Ld counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that non filing of PF was neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the reason stated above. Ld counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that infact the complainant had filed the PF for 26.8.2010, 9.12.2010, 19.2.2011 and 24.3.2011 and prays that the order passed by the court below be set aside.
5. From the perusal of record it shows that on 20.5.2010, the court below took the cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused for 26.8.2010 on filing PF. On 26.8.2010, since accused was absent despite service case was adjourned for service of B/W of accused on PF for 7.12.2010. For 7.12.2010 PF was not filed so case was adjourned for 19.2.2011 for compliance of previous order. On 19.2.2011 again PF was not filed and case was adjourned for 23.3.2011 for compliance of previous order. Since, on 23.3.2011, none was present on behalf of the complainant and the PF was also not filed for the said date, the court below dismissed the complaint of the complainant under Section 204 (4) Cr.P.C and 256 Cr.P.C for non filing of PF and non appearance of the complainant.
The plea of the the revisionist that non filing of PF and non appearance of the complainant was neither intentional, nor deliberate but due to the reason stated above, is duly supported with an affidavit of Sh. Anil Sharma, Branch Managar of the revisionist. Hence, I allow the revision petition of the revisionist and set aside the impugned order.
CR No.129/2011 Page 2/36. Revisionist is directed to appear before the court of Sh. Navjeet Budhiraja, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka Court, Delhi/Successor court on 19.05.2011 and court below is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
Trial Court Record be sent back along with the copy of this order and revision file be consigned to record room. Announced in open court on 07.05.2011 (I.S Mehta) DJ & ASJ I/C SWD Dwarka Courts/Delhi/7.5.2011 CR No.129/2011 Page 3/3