Delhi District Court
Shri Sanjeev Malhotra vs Mrs Ashu Sawhney on 22 November, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHAIL JAIN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE NDPS 02
(CENTRAL) DELHI
Crl. R. NO. 24/14
Shri Sanjeev Malhotra
Managing Director
M/S Sarthak International Ltd.
64, Hemkunt Colony,
Greater KailashI
New Delhi48.
........... Revisionist
Versus
Mrs Ashu Sawhney
w/o Sunil Sawhney
Proprietor
M/S Sri Jagdamba Enterprises
3720/1, Kanhaiya Nagar
Delhi35.
Also at
2074/162, 2nd Floor
GaneshpuraB, Tri Nagar
Delhi35.
.......RESPONDENT
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 25.07.2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 22.11.2014
J U D G M E N T
1. The present criminal revision petition u/s 399 Cr.P.C is Cr. R. NO. 24/14 Page 1 of 5 pages 2 preferred against order dated 24/04/2014 passed by Sh Rakesh Kumar Singh, Ld Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi whereby the complaint was dismissed and accused had been deemed to have been acquitted u/s 256 Cr.P.C.
2. Brief facts leading to the present revision, as per revisionist are that complainant/petitioner filed a complaint u/s 138 N I Act against the respondent. On 24/04/2014 none appeared on behalf of the complainant despite service of notice to Ld counsel for complainant, hence the matter was dismissed and accused was acquitted u/s 256 Cr.P.C.
3. Now the revisionist has challenged the order on the following grounds:
a) That in the impugned order, Ld Trial Court was of the opinion that service was not effected upon the complainant hence in the absence of effective service, complaint cannot be dismissed.
b) That grave injustice would be caused to the complainant if the accused is acquitted and the complainant will suffer financial losses.
with these and similar grounds revisionist has prayed for setting aside the order passed by Ld Trial Court.
4. I have heard arguments from Sh Pratap Sahani, Ld counsel for the revisionist and Sh O. N. S. Gaba, Ld counsel for Cr. R. NO. 24/14 Page 2 of 5 pages 3 respondent. In support of his arguments, Ld counsel for respondent has relied upon following authorities:
"1. 2009 (113) DRJ 494
2. 1997 (2) Crimes 591"
5. The point involved in the present revision is the maintainability of the revision as revision has been preferred by the revisionist against order dated 24.04.2014 whereby the complaint was dismissed by Ld Trial Court for non prosecution/in default. It is submitted by Ld counsel for respondent that since the complaint has been dismissed in default and accused had been deemed to have been acquitted as per section 256 Cr.P.C, therefore only appeal lies against the acquittal and no revision is maintainable. Though, Ld counsel for revisionist had objected to the arguments of Ld counsel for respondent but no further arguments were advanced nor any judgment in support of his arguments was provided by Ld counsel for revisionist.
6. After considering the judgments relied upon by Ld counsel for the respondent, I am of the opinion that these judgments squarely applies to the facts of the present case. In case 2009 (113) DRJ 494 Ravi Sharma vs State - similar facts were available before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and in this case Cr. R. NO. 24/14 Page 3 of 5 pages 4 Hon'ble High Court had observed that if complainant was absent and the complaint had been dismissed in default. It results in statutory acquittal of the accused and only remedy which is available to the respondent/complainant is to file an appeal against the acquittal as envisaged under section 378 (4) Cr.P.C. In this case while deciding the case in hand, Hon'ble High Court has considered the judgment passed in Crl R Petition No. 440/2000 titled as M/S T Azeerur Rehman and Co vs M/s Super Supplies 2007 (3) JCC 302.
7. Further, in case 1997 (2) Crimes 591 titled as H P Agro Industries Corporation Ltd vs M.P.S ChawlaHon'ble High Court has held that "when accused was acquitted due to dismissal of complaint u/s 256 Cr.P.C, remedy is by way of appeal and in absence of availing such remedy, High Court is not to exercise inherent powers to interfere with impugned order.
8. In view of the judgments 2009 (113) DRJ 494 Ravi Sharma vs State and 1997 (2) Crimes 591 titled as H P Agro Industries Corporation Ltd vs M.P.S Chawla (mentioned above) relied upon by Ld counsel for respondents, it is clear that once the complaint has been dismissed in default and the accused has been acquitted as per provisions of section 256 Cr.P.C, remedy available to the complainant is only by way of appeal u/s 378 (4) Cr.P.C and not revision petition. In view of above stated Cr. R. NO. 24/14 Page 4 of 5 pages 5 preposition of law revision is dismissed being not maintainable.
9. In view of my above discussion, the revision petition filed by the revisionist is dismissed being not maintainable.
10. Trial court record be sent back to Ld Trial Court with the copy of the order. File of revision be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22nd November, 2014.
( SHAIL JAIN )
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (CENTRAL)
DELHI
Cr. R. NO. 24/14 Page 5 of 5 pages