Delhi District Court
Nitin Jain vs Mr. Prem Chand Verma on 30 September, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY BANSAL:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03 (East):
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: Delhi
Criminal Revision No. 25/15
(02402R0153582015)
Nitin Jain
Sole Prop. of M/s. Jain Jewelers
Having office at C-71, Mandawali Uchepar,
Near Subzi Mandi Chowk,
Delhi - 110 092.
.... Revisionist
Vs.
Mr. Prem Chand Verma
Flat No. Y-202, Aggarsen Awas, APP
Patpaganj I.P. Extn.,
Delhi - 110 092.
....... Respondent
Date of Institution : 06.05.2015
Order Reserved on : 30.09.2015
Date of Order : 30.09.2015
CC No. : 549/14
PS. : Mayur Vihar
ID No. : 02402R0417702014
ORDER:
1. Revisionist has challenged the order dated 05.02.2015 whereby learned MM had dismissed the complaint case of the petitioner filed under Sec. 138 N.I. Act on account of non-appearance and non-prosecution.
2. Notice of the present criminal revision petition was also served upon the respondent/accused.
3. I have heard Sh. Pratyush Chirantan, ld. counsel for the revisionist Crl. Revision No. 25/15 Nitin Jain Vs. Prem Chand Verma Page 1 of 3 and Sh. Piyush Jain, ld. counsel for the respondent and also perused the record.
4. Complaint case was firstly listed on 23.12.2014 on which date none appeared and matter was adjourned to 05.02.2015. However, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner on 05.02.2015 also and learned MM dismissed the complaint case due to non-appearance.
5. Ld. counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the first date, he was bit late and ld. MM was looking after the work of link court too and he inadvertently wrongly noted the date as 05.03.2015 instead of 05.02.2015. He also submitted that for reason none could appear from the side of the complainant on 05.02.2015. He also submitted that in case complaint case be not restored, respondent/accused will escape from his liability.
6. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the respondent relying upon the case titled as H.P. Agro Industries Corporation Vs. M.P.S. Chawla [1998 (92) CompCas 686 HP] submitted that as respondent stood acquitted after dismissal of the complaint case, the present petition is not maintainable.
7. Having heard the rival submissions, I find no force in the contentions raised by ld. counsel for the respondent. Cited case is not applicable to the present case as in the said case respondent/accused had been summoned and he stood acquitted. However, in the present matter, accused/respondent was not summoned till dismissal of the complaint case. It cannot be said that respondent/accused had been acquitted. Complaint case stood dismissed only on the second date of its hearing.
8. In view of these circumstances, and in the interests of justice, present Crl. Revision No. 25/15 Nitin Jain Vs. Prem Chand Verma Page 2 of 3 criminal revision stands allowed and impugned order is set aside. Complaint case is restored to its original number.
9. Since respondent was not summoned as an accused, only petitioner is directed to appear before the ld. trial court on 05.10.2015.
10. A copy of this order be placed in the TCR and same be sent to court concerned immediately.
11. File of revision petition be consigned to Record Room. Announced in open court on 30th day of September, 2015 (Sanjay Bansal) ASJ-03 (East):
KKD Courts: Delhi.Crl. Revision No. 25/15 Nitin Jain Vs. Prem Chand Verma Page 3 of 3