The High Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal. It held that the dismissed order did not amount to acquittal since the accused was not summoned, rendering the appeal not maintainable under Section 378 Cr.P.C.
Application for leave to appeal stands dismissed as not maintainable.
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.
236
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.A-701-MA of 2015 (O&M) Date of decision: October 22, 2016
Ram Singh
...Applicant
Versus
Mohit Networking Future (P) Ltd. and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr.R.K.Saini, Advocate for the applicant.
None for the respondents.
INDERJIT SINGH, J.
Applicant-Ram Singh has filed this application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. seeking permission for leave to appeal against respondents Mohit Networking Future (P) Ltd. and Sh.Rajbir Singh Dahiya, challenging the order dated 04.02.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal, vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.
It is mainly stated in the application that accompanying appeal is being filed which is likely to succeed on the grounds taken therein. It is further stated that learned JMIC, Karnal, has erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground of maintainability. It is, therefore, prayed that leave to appeal be granted.
Notice of motion was issued and learned counsel for the Vineet Gulati 2016.10.27 14:54 I attest to the accuracy andrespondents appeared and contested the application. authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CRM No.A-701-MA of 2015 -2-
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
From the record, I find that a complaint was filed by Ram Singh against Mohit Networking Future (P) Ltd. and Sh.Rajbir Singh Dahiya, Managing Director, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint was dismissed by learned JMIC, Karnal vide order dated 04.02.2015.
The perusal of the impugned order dated 04.02.2015 shows that the accused was not summoned yet. Rather, it is in the order that on that day, the case was fixed for arguments on the point of summoning. Therefore, the dismissal of the complaint before summoning of the accused, in no way, amounts to acquittal of the accused. Hence, against the impugned order dated 04.02.2015 passed by learned JMIC, Karnal, the appeal is not maintainable as the impugned order does not amount to acquittal. As the appeal is not maintainable, the question of granting leave to appeal does not arise.
In view of the above discussion, the present application stands
dismissed being not maintainable.
October 22, 2016 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No
Vineet Gulati 2016.10.27 14:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether leave to appeal against an order dismissing a Section 138 complaint is maintainable when the accused was not summoned and the order did not amount to acquittal.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ram Singh
Mohit Networking Future (P) Ltd.
Rajbir Singh Dahiya
INDERJIT SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
