Partly allowed

Mahendra Singh Choudhary S/O Chauthmal Choudhary, v. Govind Sahai Pareek S/O Late Shri Shiv Sahai Pareek

Rajasthan HC12 Feb 2024CRLMP/627/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed trial orders dismissing an application to reopen evidence in Section 138 NI Act case. The Court granted one final opportunity for the complainant to lead evidence upon condition of cost payment and directed expeditious trial conclusion.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 04.08.2023 and 11.01.2024 quashed subject to cost payment; final opportunity given to lead evidence; trial to conclude within four months.

Mahendra Singh Choudhary S/O Chauthmal Choudhary, Vs… — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:7223]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 627/2024

¶4

Mahendra Singh Choudhary S/o Chauthmal Choudhary, R/o House No. 27-B, Umapath, Ramnagar, Sodala, Jaipur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Govind Sahai Pareek S/o Late Shri Shiv Sahai Pareek, R/o S-62, Ambabadi, Jaipur.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Poonam Chand Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahendra Meena, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶11

Order

¶12

12/02/2024

¶13

By way of this instant misc. petition under Section 482 CrPC, the petitioner-complainant has challenged the order dated 11.01.2024 passed by learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate, N.I. Act Cases No.7, Jaipur Metro-I in Criminal Case No.1425/2015 whereby the learned trial court has dismissed the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner-complaniant for reopening his evidence which was closed by the learned trial court vide order dated 04.08.2023.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant submits that as the petitioner-complainant was suffering from eye-flue and was undergoing treatment, he could not appear before the trial court and for this bonafide and genuine reason, he could not produce his evidence. He further submits that the learned trial court vide order dated 04.08.2023 closed evidence of the petitioner-

[2024:RJ-JP:7223]

[CRLMP-627/2024]

(2 of 3)

complainant. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for reopening his evidence and to provide him opportunity to lead his evidence. Vide order dated 11.01.2024, the learned trial court dismissed the application of the petitioner and posted the matter for final hearing.

¶19

Learned counsel submits that the petitioner-complainant could not attend the proceedings before the learned trial court owing to bonafide reason of his illness and the same was not intentional, but the learned trial court without considering this aspect of the matter, closed the evidence of the petitionercomplainant.

¶20

I have heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant and perused the material available on record.

¶21

The petitioner-complainant filed the complaint case under Section 138 N.I. Act. in connection with dishonour of a cheque of Rs.60,00,000/- before the learned trial court in the year 2015. The aforesaid complaint case was posted for complainant evidence on 01.05.2017 and thereafter, it was adjourned for so many dates for the said purpose. However, the petitioner-complainant failed to lead his evidence which resulted into closing of his evidence by order dated 04.08.2023. The accused-respondent is facing the proceedings arising out of this case since 2015 and thus, the complainant cannot be allowed to linger on the case on such grounds. Though, the plea of illness (eye-flue) taken by the petitioner-complainant in support of his case, is not a strong ground and helps the case of the petitioner but in the interest of justice and in order to give a last and final opportunity to the

[CRLMP-627/2024]

[2024:RJ-JP:7223]

(3 of 3)

petitioner-complainant to lead his evidence, the orders dated 04.08.2023 and 11.01.2024 are quashed and set aside subject to the cost of Rs.60,000/-, out of which Rs.30,000/- shall be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, Jaipur and Rs.30,000/- shall be given to the accused-respondent. Upon the cost of Rs.30,000/- being deposited with DLSA, Jaipur and the cost of Rs.30,000/- being given to the accused-respondent before the trial court, the trial court shall provide an opportunity to the complainant for leading his evidence. It is made clear that only one opportunity will be given to the petitioner-complainant to lead his evidence.

¶26

Further, considering the fact that the aforesaid case is pending since 2015, the learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within four months from today.

¶27

The misc. petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶28

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶29

Sudhir Asopa/34

Mahendra Singh Choudhary S/O Chauthmal Choudhary, v. Govind Sahai Pareek S/O Late Shri Shiv Sahai Pareek

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Singh Choudhary S/O Chauthmal Choudhary, v. Govind Sahai Pareek S/O Late Shri Shiv Sahai Pareek

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

Murli Manohar Naamdev S/O Shri Badri Lal Naama Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahendra Singh Son of Shri Bhanwar Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Dinesh Dhaka S/O Kishnaram Dhaka Vs State of Rajasthan

Neetu Singh S/O Shri Bhup Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Sanjay S/O Dhanraj Vs State of Rajasthan

Saddeek Son of Atatr Khan, Vs State of Rajasthan