Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.
Anup Kapoor - Appellant
Versus
Pradeep Roy - Respondent
Crl.L.P. 83 of 2021 and Crl.L.P. 84 of 2021
Decided On : 05-12-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to dismissal of complaints. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner's medical emergency justification. (Para 2) |
| 3. respondent's willingness for restoration. (Para 3) |
| 4. restoration of complaint cases. (Para 4) |
| 5. petitioner ordered to pay costs. (Para 5) |
| 6. direction for further proceedings. (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)
1. Present petitions have been filed challenging the orders dated 16.02.2021 and 18.03.2021 whereby the complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 bearing complaint case Nos.6260/2018 and 6257/2018 both titled as Anup Kapoor vs. Pradeep Roy were dismissed in default for non-compliance and non- prosecution.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant could not appear on 16.02.2021 and 18.03.2021 on account of medical emergency. Learned counsel submits that medical records have also been placed on record.
3. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 has very graciously submitted that petitions may be allowed and complaints may be restored to its original number and position for final adjudication of the dispute on merits. However, learned counsel has submitted that some cost may be imposed upon the petitioner for the casual approach.
4. Taking into account the totality of the facts and circumstances of the cases, both the complaint case Nos.6260 of 2018 and 6257/2018 both titled as Anup Kapoor vs. Pradeep Roy are restored to their original numbers.
5. The petitions are, accordingly, allowed. The petitioner shall pay cost in the sum of Rs.2,500/- in each petition to the respondent.
6. The parties are directed to appear before learned CMM, South-East on 19.12.2022 at 2 p.m. Learned CMM may try the complaint cases on his own or may allocate it to the competent court of jurisdiction.
AI
Complaints dismissed for non-prosecution can be restored when justified circumstances, such as medical emergencies, are presented, alongside the imposition of reasonable costs.
The court has the discretion to restore a complaint case dismissed in default if the default was not wilful and was accidental due to circumstances beyond the petitioner's control, without delving in....
The court allows restoration of a dismissed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, emphasizing the importance of giving parties a chance to present their case, especially when....
Litigant not penalised for counsel's mistake in prosecuting cheque bounce case amid COVID delays.
Section 256 CrPC provides discretion to Magistrate either to acquit accused or to adjourn case for some other day, if he thinks it proper.
The importance of the complainant's personal attendance for the progress of the case and the discretion of the Magistrate to adjourn the hearing or dismiss the complaint.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
