SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Del) 749

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Navin Chawla, J.
Anil Metre - Appellant
Versus
Pooja Press And Prakashan Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
Cr.M.C. 1729 of 2022 & Cr.M.A. 7368 of 2022 & Cr.M.C. 1730 of 2022 & Cr.M.A. 7370 of 2022 & Cr.M.C. 1731 of 2022 & Cr.M.A. 7372 of 2022 & Cr.M.C. 1732 of 2022 & Cr.M.A. 7374 of 2022 & Cr.M.C. 1733 of 2022 & Cr.M.A. 7376 of 2022 & Cr.M.C. 1734 of 2022 & Cr.M.A. 7379 of 2022 & Cr.M.C. 1735 of 2022 & Cr.M.A. 7381 of 2022 & Cr.M.C. 1736 of 2022 & Cr.M.A. 7383 of 2022 & Cr.M.C. 1737 of 2022 & Cr.M.A. 7385 of 2022 & Cr.M.C. 1738 of 2022 & Cr.M.A. 7387 of 2022 & Cr.M.C. 1739 of 2022 & Cr.M.A. 7389 of 2022
Decided On : 05-04-2024

Advocates appeared:
Mr.Mayank Kumar and Ms.Preeti Giri, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr.TPS Kang, Advocate, for the Respondent.

IMPORTANT POINT
The importance of providing both parties with an opportunity to be heard in revision petitions and expediting the hearing process.

Headnote:

Section 482 - Criminal Procedure - Setting aside of Impugned Order

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the Impugned Order passed by the Revisional Court, which set aside the Order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate on Complaint Cases filed by the respondent against the petitioner under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Finding of the Court:

The court found merit in the petitioner's submission that they were not given an opportunity to file a reply or be heard in the revision petitions before the Revisional Court. The Impugned Order was set aside, and the Revision Petitions were restored back to their original numbers for further proceedings.

Issues: The main issue was the lack of opportunity for the petitioner to file a reply or be heard in the revision petitions before the Revisional Court.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of providing both parties with an opportunity to be heard in the revision petitions and directed the Revisional Court to expedite the hearing without granting unwarranted adjournments.

Final Decision: The Impugned Order was set aside, and the Revision Petitions were restored back to their original numbers for further proceedings. The proceedings before the Trial Court against the petitioner were stayed, and the parties were directed to appear before the Revisional Court on a specified date.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral) - These petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, `Cr.P.C.') challenging the Order dated 04.10.2021 (hereinafter referred to as `Impugned Order') passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-05, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Criminal Revision Nos.204666 to 204672, and 204674 to 204677/2016, whereby the learned Revisional Court allowed the said Revision Petitions and set aside the Order dated 24.01.2013 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on Complaint Cases filed by the respondent against the petitioner under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2. The limited grievance of the petitioner against the Impugned Order is that the hearing before the learned Additional Sessions Judge was confined only to an application dated 06.09.2014 that had been filed by the respondent herein; the revision petitions before the learned Additional Sessions Judge were not listed for hearing and no submissions were addressed by the petitioner on the same. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had proceeded to decide the revision petitions itself without giving an opportunity to the petitioner herein to file a reply to the revision petitions or to be heard on the same.

3. I have perused the order-sheet of the learned Revisional Court which has been placed along with petition before this Court, and I find merit in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent also does not object to the petitioner being granted an opportunity to file a reply and being heard in the revision petitions.

5. Accordingly, the Impugned Order dated 04.10.2021 is set aside. The Revision Petitions are restored back to their original numbers.

6. The petitioner shall file a reply to the revision petitions within a period of three weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed by the respondent herein within a period of three weeks thereafter.

7. The learned Revisional Court shall, thereafter, decide on the revision petitions after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties, remaining uninfluenced by any observation made in the Impugned Order. The learned Revisional Court is requested to expedite the hearing of the revision petitions and not grant any unwarranted adjournments to the either party for the same.

8. The parties shall appear before the learned Revisional Court on 15th May, 2024.

9. In the meantime, the proceedings before the learned Trial Court as against the petitioner herein shall remain stayed.

10. The petitions are disposed of in the above terms. The pending applications also stand disposed of as being rendered infructuous.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top