Delhi District Court
Shri Virender Singh Rawat vs Smt. Prem Lata on 17 March, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SH M.R.SETHI: ADDL.SESSIONS
JUDGE: (FTC) (W): DELHI
Crl Revision No.24/10
Shri Virender Singh Rawat,
S/o Shri Tej Singh,
R/o H. No. AP-96-B,
Pitampura,
Delhi-110034.
Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Prem Lata,
W/o Shri Purshottam,
R/o B-1012, Gali No.30,
Main Sant Nagar, Burari,
Delhi-110 084.
Respondent
Date of Institution: 03.03.2010
Date of Arguments: 17.03.2010
Date of Order : 17.03.2010
ORDER:
1 Vide order dated 30.5.09 passed in C.C. No.289/1/08, Ld. court of Shri M.P. Singh, MM, West, Delhi was pleased to condone delay in filing the Complaint Case U/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act and was pleased to order summoning of accused. The said order has been challenged by the accused (present petitioner) before this court by way 1 of present revision petition. The petitioner seeks reversal of the said order.
2 After revision petition was assigned to this court, trial court record was summoned and notice was issued to the respondent (complainant). Thereafter, on appearance of parties, arguments were heard and hence the present order. 3 It was submitted during course of his submissions by Ld. counsel for the petitioner that he was challenging the impugned order as no effective opportunity was granted by Ld. trial court to the present petitioner to contest the application seeking condonation of delay. Ld. counsel submitted that the said application ought not to have been disposed off by Ld. trial court without issuing notice of the same to the present petitioner and hearing him in respect of the said application.
4 During course of his submissions, Ld. counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on Prashant Goel Vs. State [134 (2006) DLT 221]. On basis of aforesaid judicial pronouncement, it was submitted by Ld. counsel for petitioner that Ld. trial court ought to have heard the present 2 petitioner before condoning the delay.
5 Ld. counsel for respondent on the other hand submitted that on merits a case was made out for condonation of delay and hence Ld. trial court had rightly condoned the delay. Ld. counsel further submitted that the accused (petitioner) was delaying the matter and would be further delaying the matter in case he was granted an opportunity to contest the application seeking condonation of delay.
6 I have given my thoughtful consideration to arguments advanced and have also perused the judicial pronouncement relied upon by Ld. counsel for petitioner. It had been observed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri in Prashant Goel's matter (Supra) that when a complaint is time barred, the other side gets a valuable right in as much as time barred complaint cannot be considered on merits unless the delay is condoned. It was observed that the accused shall have right to argue that in given circumstances delay be not condoned and depriving the accused of such a valuable right and condoning delay without hearing him would be violation of principle of natural justice. His Lordship was further of the 3 view that when a time barred complaint is filed alongwith an application for condonation of delay, appropriate procedure would be to first issue notice only in respect of the said application to the other side without taking cognizance of complaint and on notice being issued and after hearing parties, if court is of opinion that there are sufficient grounds to condone the delay, the Magistrate can condone the delay which will have the effect of the complaint as initially filed and Ld. Magistrate can then deal with the complaint in accordance with procedure contained in Section 200 Cr. P.C. It was observed :
"In any case on an application for condonation of delay, it is necessary to issue notice to other side before condoning the delay".
7 His Lordship in the said matter was pleased to set aside the impugned summoning order and was further pleased to direct the Ld. trial court to first decide the issue of limitation after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties. 8 In view of the aforementioned judicial pronouncement, this court finds itself in agreement with the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. Ld. trial court before disposing off 4 the application seeking condonation of delay ought to have issued notice thereof to the present petitioner and thereafter disposed off the said application on basis of arguments advanced. That having not been done, in considered opinion of this court the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 9 Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Ld. trial court would be affording opportunity to the present petitioner to contest the application seeking condonation of delay and after disposal of the said application would be proceeding further in accordance with law. It has been stated by both sides that the matter is now fixed before Ld. trial court for 31.5.2010. The present petitioner would be filing his reply to the application seeking condonation of delay on the said date before Ld. trial court.
10 Revision petition stands disposed off accordingly. Copy of order alongwith trial court record be sent back to Ld. trial court. Revision file be separated and consigned to record room.
Announced in open court (M. R. SETHI)
on 17.3.2010 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE:
(FTC) (WEST):DELHI
5
6