Allowed

Shuguna Poulty Farm Limited v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC6 Oct 2023CRLAS/1159/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against dismissal of criminal complaint under Section 138 NI Act vide order dated 30.10.2019 for lack of diligence. Appeals allowed; order quashed. Matter remanded to trial court to issue process through ordinary means and registered speed post.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 30.10.2019 set aside; matter remanded to trial court to issue process via ordinary means and registered speed post.

Shuguna Poulty Farm Limited Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

_?C._* .%l,.

¶2

S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 115912023

¶3

Shuguna Poulty Farm Limited, Through Authorized Officer1 Dy. Managing Director Shri N.deja Coumar Regional Office 1st Floor, 19/20 D-Villa, Chanakayapuri, Behind Teej Hotel Bani Park laipur.

¶4

Versus

¶5

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶6

Raj Singh S/o Shri Surendra Singh, R/o Village Saradhna, Distt. Ajmer Raj. And Raja Poultry Farm Dorai Bypass Near Laxmi Cold Storage Ajmer Raj.

¶7

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dinesh Kala For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.G. Chopra, PP

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order

¶9

06/10/2023

¶10

Respondent no.2 was served personally through concerned police station Mangliyawas, District Ajmer. The service is complete and none present for respondent no.2.

¶11

Aggrieved from order dated 30.10.2019 in criminal case no. 1503/2018 passed by learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act cases) No.2, Jaipur Metro, laipur whereby criminal complaint case under Section 138 NI Act was dismissed under Sections 204 and 256 of Cr.P.C. by the trial court.

¶12

Learned counsel submits that they have taken effective steps but the process issued by the trial court was not returned and no proceedings were initiated to ensure that on non-return of notice. He also submitted that the petitioner is interested in pursuing his matter and he undertakes to take effective steps in future as well.

¶13

..:#.i& ,.,a ..?Cij*y Considered the submiss'ions along with submissions of learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the record called from learned trial court.

¶14

We have considered the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of V.K. Bhat Vs. G. Ravi Kishore & Ors. reported in (2016) 13 SCC 243 and Mohd. Azeem Vs. A. Venkatesh & Ors. reported in (2002) 7 SCC 726.

¶15

It appears that criminal complaint was filed on 05.05.2011 and cognizance order was passed on 11.01.2017. The reason for delay is laxity on the part of complainant because he failed to submit the original document before 09.01.2017. A perusal of order-sheets indicate that on 15.04.2019, 11.06.2019 and 09.08.2019 no order-sheet was written except a stamped ordersheet that too in most mechanical manner. This type of ordersheet is always deprecated by, this Court even on administrative side as well.

¶16

On 30.10.2019, learned trial court has observed that complainant failed to take stepsf for issuing summon through registry, means the complainant is not interested in pursuing this complaint and consequently dismissed the complaint under Sections 204 and 256 of Cr.P.C.

¶17

On considering record, except filing of process on two occasions, no receipt of booking parcel (Regd. Letter) through registered post is available on record. On 11.01.2017 learned trial court has passed the order to issue summon to respondent though no specific order was passed for issuance of summon through registered post.

¶18

[CRLAS-115912023]

¶19

[2023:W-JP:27228]

¶20

-:,,\ %', '?AP.,~ f. $+;.,QgN$g c33~@3) 'be ..

¶21

Considered the 19.04.2017 to 09.08.2019 wherein also no effective order was passed by the trial court.

¶22

It appears that even the Cdurt was not enough careful in dealing a criminal case but considering the object of justice and also the principle of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of V.K. Bhat Vs. G. Ravi Kishore & Ors. (supra), Mohd. Azeem Vs. A. Venkatesh & Ors. (supra), I am of the considered view that one more, opportunity is required to be granted to complainant but with the caution that in future the complainant will take all steps so as to ensure service upon respondent as the Court is not a dumping ground wherein he only prefers to file complaint and awaits-his fate.

¶23

In view o:f aforesaid, this app.eal is allowed. The order dated 30.10.2019 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to learned trial court with a direction to register same on original number and further issue process to respondent accused as early as possible by both means firstly through ordinary means through concerned police station and other by way of registered speed post.

¶24

The petitioner shall submit-.processes along with registry charges on next date of hearing.

¶25

The parties are directed-to .appear before the trial court on 30.10.2023,.

¶26

Misc. application, if any,,.stands disposed of.

¶27

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶28

CHETNA BEHRANI 145

Shuguna Poulty Farm Limited v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shuguna Poulty Farm Limited v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohitash S/O Shri Mulchand Vs the State of Rajasthan

Madholal Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Balchand S/O Shri Daulatram Bairwa Vs State of Rajasthan

Sonu Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Kuldeep S/O Sh. Sanjay Meghwal Vs State of Rajasthan

Mukesh Kumar S/O Roshanlal B/C Jatav Vs Rachna W/O Mukesh Kumar D/O Rambabu B/C Jatav