Allowed

Anil Kumar S/O Shri Jaisingh B/C Jangir v. Harnarayan S/O Shri Hanuman Prasad B/C Nai

Rajasthan HC18 Jul 2023CRLAS/1947/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed appeal against dismissal of cheque dishonour complaint under Section 256 Cr.P.C. due to complainant's evidence not being recorded, bifurcating the case and granting fresh one-month timeline for evidence and dismissal.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter restored to Trial Court with strict timeline to complete evidence and dispose within four months; appeal converted and allowed.

Anil Kumar S/O Shri Jaisingh B/C Jangir Vs Harnarayan S/O… — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Leave To Appeal No. 253/2019

¶3

Anil Kumar S/o Shri Jaisingh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Dhumansar Kala Teh. Surajgarh Dist. Jhunjhunu Raj.

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Harnarayan S/o Shri Hanuman Prasad, R/o Dhumansar Kala Teh. Surajgarh Distt. Jhunjhunu Raj.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ravindra Kumar Paliwal. For Respondent(s) :

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶10

Order

¶11

18/07/2023

¶12

None present for the respondent despite service of notice.

¶13

The present leave is preferred against the order dated 16.04.2019 in Criminal Case No. 1358/2018 (440/2017) passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilani, DistrictJhunjhunu, whereby in absence of complainant or his counsel, criminal complaint was dismissed in non-prosecution under Section 256 Cr.P.C.

¶14

Since the respondent is not appearing despite service of notice, therefore, at the stage of leave, it is considered proper to dispose of the matter.

¶15

A criminal complaint was filed on 02.03.2017 for dishonour of cheque of Rs.60,000/- issued by the respondent-accused in favour of the appellant-complainant. After recording plea on 01.09.2017, the matter was fixed for evidence of complainant. A

¶16

[CRLLA-253/2019]

¶17

(2 of 2)

¶18

total number of ten dates were assigned for recording of evidence and on last date i.e. 19.02.2019, the complainant was present but owing work suspension by Bar, his evidence could not be recorded by learned trial court, resulting in fixing the matter to 16.04.2019 and on said day, the impugned order was passed.

¶19

Having considered the entirety of facts and circumstances, I agree with the reasons as assigned in support of cause pleaded in petition, therefore, with a strict timeline, the petition deserves to be allowed.

¶20

Hence, the leave to appeal is granted and converted into S.B. Criminal Appeal and, consequently, S.B. Criminal Appeal is allowed and order dated 16.04.2019 is set aside. The matter is restored back to original number and the learned Trial Court is directed to afford three opportunities within a month to the complainant to conclude his evidence and thereafter two months to conclude the evidence of respondent-accused and dispose of the matter in another one month.

¶21

Learned Trial Court is expected to observe the aforesaid four months’ timeline.

¶22

The parties are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 07.08.2023.

¶23

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶24

PKS/2

Anil Kumar S/O Shri Jaisingh B/C Jangir v. Harnarayan S/O Shri Hanuman Prasad B/C Nai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar S/O Shri Jaisingh B/C Jangir v. Harnarayan S/O Shri Hanuman Prasad B/C Nai

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.Saleem Son of Shri Hakim Khwajbaksh Vs State of Rajasthan

Radheyshyam Saini Son of Shri Sitaram Saini Vs State of Rajasthan

Rakesh Kumar S/O Motilal Vs State of Rajasthan

Kalu Singh S/O Madan Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Shankar Lal Khati S/O Shri Ramswaroop Vs State of Rajasthan

Balwant Singh S/O Kapur Singh Vs State of Rajasthan