In two leave to appeal petitions challenging dismissal of cheque bounce complaints, the court set aside the impugned orders, restored complaints, and directed restoration to original position as the trial court failed to apply judicial mind.
Impugned order of 18 January 2010 setting aside; complaints restored to original position; cost of 10,000 to DSLA.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Signature Not Verified
Signing Date:13.08.2024 17:08:35 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file an d no page is missing.
Crl. L.P. Nos.94120L0" 95/20L0 & 96/20L0
Despite service, none ispresent on behalf ofthe Respondent. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the learned Trial Courthas erroneously passed the order dated 18ft January, 2010 dismissing tF. complaint ofthe Petitioner. The reason for dismissal that despite sufficienttime provided to the complainant neither the names of the signatory nor theproprietor ofthe accused firm is placed on record, though the counsel for thePetitionerwas present on the said date, is contrary to facts and law.
For the reasons stated in the petition, the leave to appealis granted.
Leave to appeal petitions stand disposed of.
crl. Appeal NosJX-60u/" 2011 & /2011(To be numbered)
Registry to number the Appeals.
The Petitioner had filed complaints under Section 138 ofthe Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the Respondent. Duringthe pendency of the complaint the Complainant was regularly appearing before the Court. On 6th July, 2OO9 the learned counsel for thecomplainant was present when the learned trial court directed the Appellant to furnish the name of the Managing Director/Proprietor of concerned firm/signatory of the cheque and the case was fixed for 5th November,2009. Onthat day the Crl. L.P. Nos. 94, 95 & 96/2010 page? of 4
1
time was sought by the Complainant forcompliance of the order dated 6ft July, 2009 and the matter was fixed for18th January, 2010. On 18ft January, 2010 learned trial court at 2:00 p.m. dismissedthe complaint of the Appellant for non-prosecution observingthat dasti sufitmons were taken by the Complainant which were not placedon record. Sufficienttime had been provided to the Complainant. Neither the name ofsignatory nor the proprietor of the accused firm is placed on file anddismissed the said complaints. It is contended that the complaintwas dismissedwhenthe matter was listed only for furtherproceedings. Onthe previousdate there was no order for issue of process and thematter was adjoumedonly for furnishing the details of the proprietor/signatory ofthe Respondent.The court had thus not applied itsjudicial mind whiledismissing the said complaints.
From the perusal of record, it is apparentthat the counsel for the Appellant was present before the learned trial courtwhen the complaints were dismissed for non-prosecution. The only reason statedfor dismissal of the complaints was non-submission of the name ofthe proprietor/signatory of the accused firm. The Appellant and hiscounsel have been followingthe present case since 2007 diligently and carefully, thus further opportunity Crl. L.P. Nos.94,95 & 96/2010 page3 of4
lo
could have been granted by the learned trial court. Evenin the present leave to appeal petitions notice could beservedto Respondentsthrough SHO only. In the facts of the case, the appeals are allowed, subjectto costs of {10,0004 each to be paid to the Delhi Legal ServicesAuthority within four weeks. The order dated 18th January, 2010 dismissing the ComplaintCase Nos.
908/1, 9091I &9I0n is set aside.
The complaints are restored to their originalposition.
Appeals stand disposed of.
The parties will appear before the learned trial Courton 14th October,
20tt.
fuM/fyLMUKTA GUPTA,J
SEPTEMBER 01,2011 rdkt
Crl. L.P. Nos.94,95 &9612010
page4 of4
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the cheque bounce complaint solely for non-production of proprietor details despite representation and hearing.
Whether sufficient opportunity was provided to the complainant to place necessary documents on record before dismissal.
Whether the impugned order dismissing the complaints for non-prosecution should be set aside.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
Respondent
Mukt Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
