Allowed

Lokesh Pancholi v. Chaturbhuj Suthar

Rajasthan HC10 May 2017CRLA/671/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against the dismissal of a Section 138 complaint. Holding that the order was contrary to natural justice as the respondent was not served summons, the Court set aside the lower court's order and remanded for fresh adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the order dated 14.01.2015 and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh adjudication.

Lokesh Pancholi Vs Chaturbhuj Suthar — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 671 / 2017

¶3

Lokesh Pancholi S/o Shri Dr. Amba Lal Ji Pancholi,, R/o-Near Punjab & Sindh Bank, Nirala Marg, Shakti Nagar, Udaipur.

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Chaturbhuj Suthar S/o Shri Meetha Lal Ji Suthar,, R/o-Village Bichadi (Wada), Tehsil Girva, Distt. Udaipur.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

_____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Deepak Menaria For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shambhoo Singh

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶10

Order

¶11

10/05/2017

¶12

This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 14.01.2015 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, (NI Act Cases) No.2, Udaipur, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘court below’) in Criminal Case No. 1561/2013, whereby the court below has dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 on account of non appearance of the appellant and his Advocate.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as a matter of fact, on the complaint filed by the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, summon was issued to the respondent and 14.01.2015 was the date fixed for the appearance of the respondent. It is submitted that from the record of the trial court, it is clear that the summon issued to the respondent was not even served on him on 14.01.2015 and as

¶14

(2 of 2)

¶15

[CRLA-671/2017]

¶16

such there is no requirement of the appellant or his Advocate to appear before the trial court because the trial court was supposed to issue fresh summons to the respondent for his appearance. It is contended that looking to the above fact, the order passed by the trial court dismissing the complaint of the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 is contrary to the principle of natural justice.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has opposed the appeal, however, he frankly admitted that since the summon of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 was not served upon the respondent, the trial court was supposed to issue fresh summon and the presence of the appellant or his Advocate was not required on the date when his complaint was dismissed by the trial court for non-prosecution.

¶18

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this criminal appeal is allowed. The order dated 14.01.2015 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, (NI Act Cases) No.2, Udaipur in Criminal Case No. 1561/2013 is hereby set aside.

¶19

The matter is remanded to the trial court for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

¶20

(VIJAY BISHNOI)J.

¶21

Taruna

Lokesh Pancholi v. Chaturbhuj Suthar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lokesh Pancholi v. Chaturbhuj Suthar

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

Mohd. Nasim Khan Vs State

M/S Raman Dairy Vs Rajasthan Dairy Co-Operative Fd. and Anr.

Fakrudeen Vs State

Asararul Haq Vs Shanti Lal and Ors.

Smt Pratishtha Jain Vs State

Devi Lal Vs State and Ors.