Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Raminder Singh Soin & Anr vs Cathay Commercial Private Limited on 28 January, 2019

Author: Asha Arora

Bench: Asha Arora

28.01.19
 Sl.no. 34
 Ct. No. 30
   P.M.
                         C. R. R. 3335 OF 2016

                     Raminder Singh Soin & Anr.
                              - vs -
                  Cathay Commercial Private Limited




        Mr. Ayan Bhattacharya,
        Mr. Manish Shukla
                                 ... for the petitioners

        Mr. Anirban Dutta,
        Mr. Shibendu Patra
                                 ... for the opposite party.



        Petitioners have assailed the order dated 18.08.2016 passed by the

  learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 18th Court, Calcutta in case No.

  CS/0027517 of 2015 corresponding to T.R. Case No. 7221 of 2015 under

  Section 138/ of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The order

  impugned is quoted herein below : -



         "18.08.16 - Complainant is absent by petition on the ground stated

  therein.


        Ld. Lawyer for the accused no. 1, 2 and 3 files a petition u/s 305 and

   of Cr.P.C. Copy served on other side. Objection raised.
       No steps taken on behalf of accused No. 4. Hence, issue W/A against

accused No. 4.


      Requisites, at once.


      It appears from the record that since the accused No. 2 and 3 has not

yet appeared in this case once, so the petition u/s 205 and  of Cr.P.C on

behalf of accused No. 1, 2, 3 be kept in abeyance and shall be considered

after their appearance in Court.


      To 15.11.16 for appearance/hearing and E/R."



      Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was no

justification for insisting on the personal appearance of the accused Nos. 2

and 3 who are the petitioners herein for considering their petition under

Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is contended that in a

summons procedure case the personal attendance of the accused need not

be insisted upon on the date of hearing of the petition under section 205

Cr.P.C. unless it is necessary in the interest of justice. To fortify his

submission learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the case of

Bimal Kumar Gupta - versus - Chandi Charan Nawn and the State of

West Bengal reported in Crimes 1987 (2) 686.



      Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party submits that on

29.11.2018

the petitioners surrendered before the trial Court and have been granted bail so the present application may be disposed of with a direction upon the learned Magistrate to dispose of the petition under Section 205 Cr.P.C.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I am inclined to direct the learned Magistrate to hear the petition under section 205 Cr.P.C. and dispose of the same in accordance with law without insisting on the personal appearance of the petitioners at the time of such hearing of the aforesaid petition unless it is necessary in the interest of justice. It is however, made clear that this order does not fetter the discretion conferred upon the Magistrate under section 205(2) Cr.P.C. to direct the personal attendance of the accused and, if necessary, enforce such attendance at any stage of the proceedings.

The learned Magistrate shall expedite the trial of the above mentioned case and dispose of the same in accordance with law without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

The application being C.R.R. 3335 of 2016 is thus disposed of. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the applicant upon compliance of requisite formalities. ( Asha Arora, J.)