Allowed

M/S. Anchor Electrical Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S. Gautam Enterprises and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Jul 2010APPLN/2142/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal application and set aside the impugned order of the learned Magistrate which dismissed the complaint. The dismissal was attributed to the failure to provide the complainant an opportunity to record verification.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside; the matter is restored to the file and remanded to the trial court.

M/S. Anchor Electrical Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Gautam… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2142 OF 2010

¶5

M/s.Anchor Electrical Pvt.Ltd....Applicants
vs.

¶6

M/s.Gautam Enterprises & Ors....Respondents

¶7

Mr.Rajesh S. Patil for the Applicants.
Mrs.P.P. Bhosale, APP for the State.
Mr.Rohan Surve for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.

¶8

 CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J.

¶9

 DATED : JULY 6, 2010

¶10

P.C. :-

¶11

1Heard Counsel for the applicants and

¶12

counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2.

¶13

2This application is filed for challenging

¶14

the order passed by the learned Magistrate
dismissing the complaint filed by the complainant.
Notice was issued on 3rd May, 2010 and in the said

¶15

¶16

order, it was clarified that the application would

¶17

be disposed of at the stage of admission.

¶18

3Counsel for the applicant submitted that

¶19

the complaint was filed on 24th July, 2009 and

¶20

thereafter, it was adjourned to 29th October, 2009.

¶21

On the next date, the complainant was not well and

¶22

therefore, could not remain present. It was,
therefore, adjourned to 27th January, 2010. It is

¶23

the case of the applicant that the applicant had

¶24

perused the board on that day, however, the case was

¶25

not listed on the board and therefore, as per the
practice followed in that court, he was asked to

¶26

find out from room no.63 whether the case was

¶27

transferred to that court. However, on verification,

¶28

it was found that the said matter also was not on

¶29

that board. He, therefore, came back and made

¶30

enquiry with the court clerk who informed him that

¶31

the matter has been dismissed after it was taken on

¶32

board. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the
trial court ought to have given one more opportunity

¶33

¶34

to the applicant. He submitted that this fact was
immediately brought to the notice of the trial court
on the very same day, however, the learned
Magistrate expressed his inability to review the
said order.

¶35

however, vehemently urged that the applicant had not
produced xeroxed copy of the board. He also
submitted that the complainant has remained absent
on two dates and therefore, the Sessions Court was
justified in rejecting the application. He submitted
that there was no reason for this court to interfere
with the order passed by the learned Magistrate
dismissing the complaint on account of absence of
the complainant particularly, when his presence was
very much required for recording the verification.

¶36

applicant and Counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 at
length. In my view, the discretion vested in the

¶37

¶38

trial court under Section 256 of the Cr.P.C. ought
to have been judiciously exercised and the trial
court ought to have given one more opportunity to
the complainant in recording the verification,
particularly, when the complaint was dismissed on
the third date after it was filed.

¶39

6Under these circumstances, therefore, the

¶40

impugned order is set aside. The matter is restored
to the file. The matter is again remanded back to
the trial court.

¶41

7Application, accordingly, is disposed of.

M/S. Anchor Electrical Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S. Gautam Enterprises and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Anchor Electrical Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S. Gautam Enterprises and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nadeem Aziz Merchant @ Nadeem Chikna and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohd. Gulam Hussein Mohd. Meghu Shaikh @ Nana Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sanjay Jaywant Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra

Arjun @ Navajali Murasali Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Prashant Uttam Khare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shridhr Laxman Chennuri Vs the Union of India and Anr.