Delhi District Court
Hdfc Bank Ltd vs Nota Industries on 13 October, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SHRI I.S.MEHTA,
DISTRICT JUDGE & ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
INCHARGE SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DELHI.
Criminal Revision No.352/2011
HDFC Bank Ltd. ....Revisionist
Versus
Nota Industries ....Respondent
Date of Institution : 26.09.2011
Date of Arguments : 13.10.2011
Date of Decision : 13.10.2011
Appearance: Sh. Anuj Verma, Ld. counsel for the revisionist.
ORDER
1. The present revision petition is filed by the revisionist against the order dated 16.8.2011, passed by Sh. Sushil Anuj Tyagi, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, vide which the complaint case of the revisionist was dismissed in default for non appearance of the complainant u/s 256 Cr.P.C and for non prosecution under section 204 (4) Cr.P.C.
2. Aggrieved from the impugned order, revisionist has filed the present revision petition on the ground that the impugned order is bad in law and the court below has wrongly dismissed the complaint of the revisionist and prays that the impugned order be set aside.
3. I have heard Sh. Anuj Verma, Ld. counsel for the revisionist and have also gone through the relevant record including the impugned order.
4. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has submitted that he did not appear before the court below on 16.8.2011, as the present case was not listed in his cause list. Ld. counsel for the revisionist has further submitted CR No. 352/2011 Page 1/2 that on 5.9.2011, when he approached the court below, it was revealed the the present case was dismissed on 16.8.2011.
Ld. counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that his non appearance before the court below and the non filing of PF was neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the reason stated above.
Ld counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that he undertakes to file the PF in time and prays that impugned order be set aside.
5. From the perusal of record it shows that the court below took the cognizance of the offence u/s 138 Negotiable Instrument Act on 9.2.2011 and summoned the accused on PF for 9.5.2011. On 9.5.2011, since none was present on behalf of the complainant and PF was not filed, the case was adjourned to 16.8.2011. Thereafter, on 16.8.2011, since again none was present and PF was also not filed, the court below dismissed the complaint of the complainant for non appearance u/s 256 Cr.P.C and for non prosecution u/s 204 (4) Cr.P.C.
The plea taken by the the revisionist that his non appearance before the court below and non filing of PF was neither intentional, nor deliberate but due to the reason stated above, is duly supported with an affidavit of Sh. Gopal Ranga, Authorized Representative of the complainant Bank. As such, I allow the revision petition of the revisionist and set aside the impugned order.
6. Revisionist is directed to appear before the court of Sh. Sushil Anuj Tyagi, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka Court, Delhi/Successor court on 24.10.2011 and court below is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
Trial Court Record be sent back along with the copy of this order and revision file be consigned to record room. Announced in open court on 13.10.2011 (I.S Mehta) DJ & ASJ I/C SWD Dwarka Courts/Delhi.
CR No. 352/2011 Page 2/2