Shri Ram Mehar Kaushik v. Shri Pankaj Mathur

Delhi HC9 Jan 2025CRL.L.P./379/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of 30-day delay; leave to appeal; dismissal of Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 complaint for non-prosecution/non-appearance; transfer of court to P.S. Janakpuri jurisdiction; restoration of criminal complaint subject to Rs.10,000 costs; Delhi High Court; Jasmeet Singh, J.; CRL.L.P. 379/2022; CRL.M.A. 14944/2022; Crl. A. 2025 (to be numbered); listing before CMM on 07.02.2025.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal granted and appeal allowed; complaint restored to its original number and position subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- costs to the counsel for the respondent; complaint to be listed before the concerned CMM on 07.02.2025, costs to be paid before or on that date. ¶¶25

Shri Ram Mehar Kaushik Vs Shri Pankaj Mathur — Cheque Dishonour | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the 30-day delay in filing the appeal should be condoned. +1 more

¶¶5

Court's answer

The delay of 30 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶¶6

Ratio / Principle

The non-appearance of the petitioner and his counsel was neither intentional nor deliberate but caused by the transfer of the court; on that basis leave to appeal is granted.

¶¶17

Key takeaways

The appellant and his counsel were regularly prosecuting the complaint and lost track only on account of the transfer to the new court, which resulted in dismissal for non-prosecution.ratio¶¶23
The endeavour of the Court should be to hear and adjudicate on merits rather than on technicalities.obiter¶¶24
The non-appearance on 21.09.2019 or earlier dates was neither intentional, deliberate nor malafide; it was due to a bonafide error.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Jasmeet Singh, J.), CRL.L.P. 379/2022, decided 09.01.2025 — Leave to appeal granted against the order dated 21.09.2019 of the learned MM (NI Act-08), South West District, Dwarka Court, New Delhi, dismissing Criminal Complaint Case No. 24666/2019 ('RamMehar Kaushik v. Shri Pankaj Mathur') under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 for non-prosecution and non-appearance. The 30-day delay in filing (CRL.M.A. 14944/2022) was condoned. Certified copies showed the complainant/counsel present on 05.12.2018, 11.02.2019 and 23.04.2019; after the matter was transferred to the Court of P.S. Janakpuri they lost track and missed subsequent dates. The Court found the non-appearance neither intentional, deliberate nor malafide but a bonafide error, observed that the endeavour of the Court should be to adjudicate on merits rather than technicalities, allowed the appeal, and restored the complaint to its original number and position subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- costs to the respondent's counsel, with listing before the concerned CMM on 07.02.2025.

¶1

$~30

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CRL.L.P. 379/2022 SHRI RAM MEHAR KAUSHIK .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Prag Chawla, Advocate versus SHRI PANKAJ MATHUR .....Respondent Through: Mr. Puneet Kumar and Ms. Ranu Arora, Advocates (through VC) Mr. Puneet Kumar, Mr. Vipul Kumar, Mr. Rakesh Kumar,Ms. Renu Aroa and Ms. Taniya, Advocates for R-2

¶4

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH O R D E R % 09.01.2025 CRL.M.A. 14944/2022 (for delay)

¶5

This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 30 in filing the appeal.

¶6

For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 30 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶7

The application stands disposed of.

¶8

CRL.L.P. 379/2022

¶9

This is a petition seeking leave to appeal against the impugned order 21.09.2019 passed by the learned MM (NI Act-08), South West District, Dwarka Court, New Delhi in Criminal Complaint Case No. 24666/2019 titled as “RamMehar Kaushik v. Shri Pankaj Mathur” under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 wherein the learned Trial Court dismissed the said complaint on the ground of non-prosecution and nonappearance.

¶10

It is stated by Mr. Chawla, learned counsel for the petitioner that the

¶11

This is a digitally signed order.

¶12

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/01/2025 at 14:50:04

¶13

petitioner as well as his counsel have regularly been appearing before the learned Trial Court. Some orders prior to the impugned order dated 21.09.2019 shows that the petitioner/counsel was regularly appearing.

¶14

He has handed over the certified copies of the order which shows that on 05.12.2018 the counsel for the complainant was present, on the next date i.e. 11.2.2019 the counsel for the complainant was present, on the next date i.e. 23.04.2019 the complainant was present in person and the matter was transferred to the concerned Court of P.S. Janakpuri. Thereafter the complainant as well as the counsel lost the track of the new Court and could not appear on subsequent dates.

¶15

A perusal of the same shows that the petitioner and his counsel were regular in prosecuting the Complaint but only on account of transfer to the new Court, they lost the track.

¶16

Notice was issued to the respondent on 15.05.2023 and the respondent had been appearing in the past.

¶17

For the reasons as noted, I am satisfied that the non appearance of the learned counsel and the petitioner was neither intentional nor deliberate but for the reason of the Court having been transferred. In addition, Court notice issued to the complainant i.e. the petitioner was also unserved. In this view of the matter, the leave to appeal is granted.

¶18

Mr. Kumar, learned counsel appears through V.C. and opposes the petition.

¶19

For the reasons already noted above, the leave to appeal is granted. Crl. A. 2025 (To be numbered)

¶20

The Registry is directed to number the appeal and the appeal is taken up for hearing.

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/01/2025 at 14:50:04

¶23

In the present case, the appellant had filed a complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 against the respondent. As already recorded above, the appellant/counsel was regularly appearing in Court and only on account of transfer of the Court, the appellant/counsel lost the track and hence the said Complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶24

The endeavour of the Court should be to hear and adjudicate on merits rather than on technicalities. The appellant had been appearing in the past and was diligently prosecuting the complaint, but only on account of change of the Court, the Complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution. The nonappearance on 21.09.2019 or the date earlier was neither intentional, deliberate nor malafide. It was due to a bonafide error.

¶25

However, the respondent has been put to hardship on account of nonappearance of the complainant/counsel. For the said reasons, the appeal is allowed and the Complaint filed by the appellant against the respondent is restored to its original number and position subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to the counsel for the respondent.

¶26

List the Complaint before the concerned CMM on 07.02.2025 prior to which the costs shall be paid or on that date.

¶27

The certified copies of the orders handed over in Court are taken on record.

¶28

JASMEET SINGH, J

¶29

JANUARY 9, 2025/j

¶30

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶31

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/01/2025 at 14:50:04

Shri Ram Mehar Kaushik v. Shri Pankaj Mathur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Ram Mehar Kaushik v. Shri Pankaj Mathur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagender Bhati Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Dinesh Kumar Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Mumtaz Ali Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Rakesh Dixit Alias Bhajji Vs State of (Nct) Delhi through S Ho P S Narela Delhi

Custom Vs Mohammad Sabir

Manoj Kumar Vs Raj Kumar Sharma