Allowed

Buddhi Prakash Mishra Son of Shri Ripusudan v. Chandra Mohan Sharma Son of Shri Mangilal Sharma

Rajasthan HC12 Jul 2023CRLAS/1955/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed the S.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal, condoning significant delay. Quashed the order dismissing the case for non-prosecution and converted it into a regular appeal to be disposed of on merits within a timeline directed by this court.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal granted; appeal converted and allowed; order dismissed for non-prosecution set aside; case restored and time-bound for disposal.

Buddhi Prakash Mishra Son of Shri Ripusudan Vs Chandra… — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Leave To Appeal No. 81/2021

¶3

Buddhi Prakash Mishra Son Of Shri Ripusudan, Resident Of B-45, Subhash Colony, Khedli Fatak, Kota District Kota (Raj)

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Chandra Mohan Sharma Son Of Shri Mangilal Sharma, Resident Of House No. 9, Ganesh Nagar, Sector -3, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur (Raj)

¶7

	----Respondent
For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Ashvendra Singh Rathore for Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Ashish Chauhan

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶9

Order

¶10

12/07/2023

¶11

Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

¶12

Present leave to appeal is preferred aggrieved from order of dismissal of criminal case filed on complaint under Section 138 NI Act before learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) & Judicial Magistrate-North-5, Kota whereby on 14.05.2014, in absence of complainant and his counsel, the case was dismissed for nonprosecution. Aggrieved from aforesaid, an application for restoration was filed before very same court on 26.05.2014 which was ultimately dismissed by learned Judicial Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No.1, Kota on 20.01.2021. Hence, this leave to appeal.

¶13

Office has pointed out a delay of 2461 days in filing present leave to appeal.

¶14

[CRLLA-81/2021]

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

Considered aforesaid and heard learned counsels for both the parties. Pursuing a case before a wrong forum under incorrect provisions of law and for the reasons stated in the application itself, in view of provisions of Section 14 read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the application for condonation of delay is allowed and delay is condoned.

¶17

Misc. application stands disposed of.

¶18

At this stage, with consent of learned counsels for parties, matter is disposed on merits.

¶19

Heard on merits of the case as it was just an order of dismissal for non-prosecution and aggrieved from this leave to appeal is preferred.

¶20

Learned counsel for respondent vehemently opposed the grounds of restoration and submitted that appellant is in fact blackmailing under the garb of aforesaid cheque, as parties had a settlement as a part of which a cheque for donation was given but appellant is misusing his position as a holder of cheque.

¶21

Considered the reasons and perused proceedings as recorded by learned trial court, it appears that on 22.08.2013, plea was recorded and thereafter four chances were afforded for crossexamination but on one occasion, I.e. 07.02.2014, appellant was present for cross-examination but time was sought by accused and on his request, learned trial court allowed the adjournment on cost of Rs.100. Thereafter on 14.05.2014, in absence of complainant, the complaint was dismissed.

¶22

Considered entirety of the matter and also that the dispute was not disposed of on merits by learned trial court as dispute between the parties remained undecided, therefore after

¶23

[CRLLA-81/2021]

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

restoration, affording an opportunity for disposal is need of the hour.

¶26

Considering the entire aspect of the matter, it would be appropriate, if at some cost, the appeal is allowed and matter is restored but a timeline is set out for disposal of case.

¶27

As a result, present leave to appeal is granted, thereby converted appeal is allowed and order dated 14.05.2014 passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases), Kota is set aside. The criminal case is restored to its original number with direction to learned trial court to dispose of aforesaid criminal case within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of record from this court. After affording three opportunities to appellant complainant with no adjournment and thereafter a time of two months is granted for defence evidence and one month for argument and judgment.

¶28

Parties are directed to appear before learned trial court on 01.08.2023.

¶29

Present leave to appeal stands disposed of.

¶30

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶31

PREETI VALECHA /05

Buddhi Prakash Mishra Son of Shri Ripusudan v. Chandra Mohan Sharma Son of Shri Mangilal Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Buddhi Prakash Mishra Son of Shri Ripusudan v. Chandra Mohan Sharma Son of Shri Mangilal Sharma

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

Roshen Vs State

Kuldeep Son of Ramdev Vs State of Rajasthan

Alok Pareek Son of Late Shri Radheyshyam Pareek Vs Moolchand Yadav Son of Unknown

Yogendra Singh Puniya S/O Mungaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Manohar Lal @ Pintu S/O Badri Prasad Vs State of Rajasthan

Kailash Chand S/O Lt. Shri Manak Chand B/C Mahajan Vs Deepakraj S/O Shri Girraj