The High Court allowed the criminal appeal against an order dismissing the complaint due to the complainant's non-appearance. Finding the absence bona fide, the impugned order was set aside, the complaint restored, and costs awarded to the respondent.
Impugned order set aside; complainant's case restored to file; appellant directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- as costs.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 1st DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 187 of 2021
Between:-
SHRI GANGA RAM, SON OF LATE SHRI SIS RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHANAIR, POST OFFICE DAMORH, VIA NARKANDA, TEHSIL KUMARSAIN, DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.
...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI D.S. KAINTHLA, ADVOCATE)
AND
SHRI SATISH MEHTA, SON OF SHRI RAMESH MEHTA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAGARI, POST OFFICE BHUTTI, VIA NARKANDA, TEHSIL KUMARSAIN, DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P. ALSO PROPRIETOR OF TRADE MARK-RMA ROYAL APPLE MERCHANT, BELOW KHALINI CHOWK, KHILINI NEAR HPSEB OFFICE, SHIMLA, H.P.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI PARMOD THAKUR, ADVOCATE)
Whether approved for reporting? No.
__________________________________________________________ This petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court passed the following:
2
O R D E R
By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged order, dated 08.07.2019, passed by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Shimla, H.P. in Case No. 422-3 of 14/13, titled as Shri Ganga Ram Vs. Shri Satish Mehta , which reads as under:-
“08.07.2019
Present:None for the complainant.
Case called twice after lunch, but none has appeared on behalf of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Shimla, H.P. in Case No. 4223 of 14/13, titled as Shri Ganga Ram Vs. Shri Satish Mehta the complainant. The presence of complainant was required for taking steps for issuance of B.W. The entire cause list is exhausted. It is 3:50 P.M. It appears that complainant is not interested in pursuing the present complaint. Hence, the present complaint be consigned to the record room. It be revived as and when complainant file application for its restoration.” Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Shimla, H.P. in Case No. 422-3 of 14/13, titled as Shri Ganga Ram Vs. Shri Satish Mehta
3
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Shimla, H.P. in Case No. 422-3 of 14/13, titled as Shri Ganga Ram Vs. Shri Satish Mehta is set aside, as this Court is convinced that the non-appearance of the complainant as also his counsel was bonafide and not intentional. The Complaint is ordered to be restored to its original number. The appeal is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.3000/-, which shall be paid by the appellant to the respondent on the next date of hearing of the complaint. It is clarified that in case the cost is not paid against receipt, the present order shall automatically stand rendered inoperative. Learned Trial Court will make all endeavour to decide the case as expeditiously as possible.
Parties through counsel are directed to appear before the learned Court below on 22nd December, 2021.
Appeal stands disposed of.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge
December 01, 2021 (bhupender)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the order dismissing the complaint due to non-appearance of the complainant should be set aside?
Whether the non-appearance of the complainant and his counsel was bona fide or intentional?
Whether the complaint should be restored to the file and proceed expeditiously?
Shri Ganga Ram
Shri Satish Mehta
Ajay Mohan Goel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
