Dismissed

Ratul Lahkar v. Mrinal Ch. Das

Gauhati HC9 Sept 2022Crl.L.P./123/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge dismissed a Special Leave to Appeal under Section 378 CrPC against an appellate order setting aside a conviction for Section 138 NI Act, citing non-prosecution due to failure to serve notice on the respondent for over three years.

What did the court decide?

The application filed under Section 378 CrPC was dismissed on the ground of non-prosecution due to failure to serve notice for over three years.

Ratul Lahkar Vs Mrinal Ch. Das — Cheque Dishonour | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010056972017

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : Crl.L.P./123/2017

¶5

RATUL LAHKAR

¶6

S/O S.R. LAHKAR, R/O GOTANAGAR, PO-GOTANAGAR, PS- JALUKBARI, GUWAHATI-781033

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

MRINAL CH. DAS S/O SRI SIRISH CHANDRA DAS, R/O BSNL QUARTER COMPLEX, N.E. REGION, DHARAPUR, PO and PS AZARA, GUWAHATI-781017

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.P UPAMANYU

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent :

Linked Case :

RATUL LAHKAR

VERSUS

MRINAL CHANDRA DAS

Page No.# 2/3

-----------Advocate for : MS.P UPAMANYU Advocate for : appearing for MRINAL CHANDRA DAS

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date : 09-09-2022

¶20

Heard Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶21

This application under Section 378[4], Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred seeking Special Leave to Appeal against a judgment and order dated 23.06.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 4, FTC, Kamrup [M], Guwahati [‘the appellate court’, for short] in Criminal Appeal no. 139/2016 whereby the appellate court has set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kamrup [M], Guwahati [‘the trial court’, for short] in C.R. Case no. 1075^C /2014. The learned trial court had convicted the opposite party no. 2 for commission of the offence under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 4 months and to pay compensation of Rs. 4,80,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 [one] month.

¶22

It is noticed from the case records that the applicant has not taken steps by usual process or through the Officer In-charge of the concerned Police Station for service of notice on the sole respondent in terms of the order of the Court dated 04.05.2019 till date. It goes to show that the applicant has not taken steps for service of notice upon the sole respondent for a period of more than 3 years.

¶23

Page No.# 3/3

¶24

Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that he has not received any instruction from the applicant during the last 3 years since 2019 as regards the address of the opposite party no. 2. It, thus, appears from the case records as well as from the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not serious in pursuing the present litigation since no attempt has been made to serve the notice upon the opposite party no. 2 for a period of more than 3 years.

¶25

In view of the above fact situation, this Court having no other option, is constrained to dismiss this application on the ground of non-prosecution.

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

Comparing Assistant

Ratul Lahkar v. Mrinal Ch. Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratul Lahkar v. Mrinal Ch. Das

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

Gopesh Deka Vs Phul Kumari Deka

Mrs Bornali Dutta Changmai and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Sanjit Paul Vs the State of Assam

Md. Majnur Ali and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Ratul Lahkar Vs Mrinal Ch. Das

Md. Abdul Quddus @ Kuddush Ali Vs the State of Assam