Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M/S. Sri Rajyalakshmi Industries vs M/S G.R. Constructions on 26 April, 2023
Author: K. Sreenivasa Reddy
Bench: K. Sreenivasa Reddy
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
Criminal Revision Case No.116 of 2023
Judgment:
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the docket
order, dated 30.11.2022, passed in CC No.5569 of 2022 by the
learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.
2. The petitioner herein filed a complaint, under Section 200 of
Cr.P.C., against the respondents 1 to 5/accused for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the same was taken on file as CC No.5569 of 2018. The learned Magistrate dismissed the said CC for default, by the impugned order dated 30.11.2022, which reads as follows.
"Both parties called absent. No representation for complainant since long time. NBW pending against accused. Continuation batta not filed. Hence, complaint is dismissed for default and the accused is discharged. Suomoto NBW against accused recalled. Concerned police are directed to return the NBW of accused forthwith to this Court."
Against the said order, the present Criminal Revision Case came to be filed by the complainant.
2
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submits that the petitioner was met with an accident and admitted in Sai Institute of Sports Injury & Arthroscopy, Hyderabad, where surgery was conducted to his right knee, and for the reason stated above, the petitioner could not attend the Court on 30.11.2022. He further submits that the learned Magistrate ought not to have dismissed the complaint for absence of the complainant on one day.
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Azeem Vs. A. Venkatesh and another 1, held, "In our opinion, the learned Magistrate and the High Court have adopted a very strict and unjust attitude resulting in failure of justice. In our opinion, the learned Magistrate committed an error in acquitting the accused only for absence of the complainant on one day and refusing to restore the complaint when sufficient cause for the absence was shown by the complainant"
5. In view of the above judgment, I am also of the view that the cases cannot be dismissed for the reason that the complainant was absent for a single day. Further, the petitioner has shown sufficient cause for his absence.
6. In view of the above precedent, the impugned order, dated 30.11.2022, passed in C.C.No.5569 of 2018 by the learned I 1 (2002) 7 Supreme Court Cases 726 3 Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, is set aside. C.C.No.5569 of 2018 is restored to the file of the learned Magistrate for disposal of the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.
7. The Criminal Revision Case, is accordingly, allowed.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed.
_____________________ K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J Dated:26.04.2023 Asr 4 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.116 of 2023 Dated:26.04.2023 Asr