Partly allowed

Jagdish Chander Jain v. Sunhera Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Apr 2009CRM-M/51583/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed an order dismissing a Section 138 cheque dishonour complaint in default. Petitioner, noting the complaint hadn't resulted in summons, sought merits trial via Article 21. Court restored complaint subject to Rs.10,000 cost, directing fresh appearance.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 24.04.2006 setting aside Section 138 complaint dismissal in default is quashed. Complaint restored subject to Rs.10,000 payment. Appearance directed before 8.05.2009.

Jagdish Chander Jain Vs Sunhera Singh — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Criminal Misc. No. M-51583 of 2007

¶3

Date of decision: 15^th April, 2009

Jagdish Chander Jain

… Petitioner

Versus

Ch. Sunhera Singh

… Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶10

Present: Mr. Ajit Atri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Madan Pal, Advocate for the respondent.

¶11

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)

¶12

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the order dated 24^th April, 2006 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Karnal.

¶13

In the present case, complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was instituted on 20^th December, 1996. Same was dismissed in default on 18^th February, 1997. Against the dismissal of the complaint in default, a revision petition was filed and the revisional Court on 2^nd December, 2005 had restored the complaint. Subsequently, complaint was again dismissed in default on 24^th April, 2006. A revision petition was preferred, which was dismissed on 2^nd August, 2007. The complaint was dismissed before the accused could be summoned. Therefore, Section 256 Cr.P.C. will not come into play.

¶14

Counsel for the petitioner has stated that fair play demands that the complaint should be adjudicated on merits. He says that the

¶15

¶16

Criminal Misc. No. M-51583 of 2007

¶17

complainant could not cause appearance due to bonafide mistake and he is ready to pay the cost as compensation to the accused, who had to cause appearance in this Court.

¶18

Counsel for the respondent accused has submitted that 12 years have elapsed, therefore, heavy cost should be imposed.

¶19

Taking into consideration the rival submissions made by counsel for the parties, impugned order dated 24^th April, 2006 (Annexure P-2), whereby complaint was dismissed in default, is set aside. Complaint is restored to its original number, subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as cost. Petitioner may cause appearance before the trial Court on 8^th May, 2009.

¶20

With these observations, present petition is disposed off.

¶21

[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE

¶22

April 15, 2009 rps

Jagdish Chander Jain v. Sunhera Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Chander Jain v. Sunhera Singh

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

Milkha Ram etc. Vs Tilak Raj etc.

Bhupender Malik Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Baljit Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Wazir Khan Vs State of Pb.

Harchand Singh Vs State of Hy.

Anil Sharma and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.