Restoration of complaints dismissed for non-prosecution is permissible if no prejudice is caused and valid reasons for non-appearance are provided, supported by the presumption under the NI Act regarding dishonored cheques.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is directed against the order dated 23.11.2020, passed by the Principal District & Sessions Judge (North), Rohini Courts, Delhi in Criminal Revision No. 79/2020.

2. The facts, in brief, leading to the instant revision petition are as under:

a) The respondent herein filed a complaint against the dishonour of a cheque bearing No.017595 dated 01.12.2016 drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce for Rs.3,50,000/-, given by the petitioners herein as refund of security amount. The said cheque was returned with endorsement "Payment stopped by drawer" vide return memo dated 10.01.2017. A legal notice dated 12.01.2017 was issued by the respondent and on failure of payment of the said amount, a complaint was filed by the respondent herein against the petitioners herein before the learned Trial Court on 28.02.2017.

b) The material on record shows that the complaint was listed for hearing on 18.04.2017 before the learned Trial Court but there was no appearance on behalf of the complainant/respondent herein and the matter was adjourned to 07.07.2017. On 07.07.2017 again due to non appearance of the complainant/respondent herein the matter was adjourned for 11.01.2018. On 11.01.2018, the lawyers were abstaining from work and there was no appearance on behalf of the complainant/respondent herein and the matter was adjourned to 16.05.2018. On 16.05.2018, the complaint was dismissed for non-appearance of the complainant/respondent herein.

c) The respondent herein filed a revision petition on 18.09.2020, being Criminal Revision No.79/2020, under Section 397 Cr.P.C for setting aside the order dated 16.05.2018 and for restoration of the complaint. The said revision petition was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. A perusal of the abovementioned revision petition shows that the reason given by the complainant/respondent herein for non-appearance was that due to his involvement in some cases regarding some property and financial transactions he was absconding fearing arrest. It is stated that the respondent herein was arrested on 11.02.2019 and he remained in judicial custody till 15.05.2020. It is stated that when he was released from custody on 15.05.2020, there was lockdown due to the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic. It is stated that the respondent made enquiries regarding the proceedings in his complaint and when he came to know of the dismissal of the complaint for non-appearance he filed the abovementioned revision petition. It is further stated that non-appearance of the complainant/respondent herein in the complaint case was neither deliberate nor intentional.

d) The learned Principal District & Sessions Judge vide order dated 23.11.2020 allowed the revision petition on payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- which was to be paid to the Delhi Legal Service Authority. The revision petition was allowed subject to the following conditions:

"a) That the revisionist will be allowed to conclude pre-summoning evidence on one date given by Ld. Trial Court and the revisionist will not seek unnecessary adjournments, but subject to production of receipt of the cost imposed herein above, before Ld. Trial Court.

b) That the revisionist will ensure that he will appear regularly before the Ld. MIV either in person or through his counsel."

e) The learned Principal District & Sessions Judge held that the complaint was dismissed for non-appearance of the complainant at the pre-summoning stage and that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners herein if the complaint is restored back. The learned Principal District & Sessions Jud