Procedural laws are handmaids of justice and should not defeat substantive rights; complaints dismissed in default due to unintentional absence caused by extraordinary circumstances, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, should be restored to ensure the case is decided on its merits.

Order

1. The present criminal miscellaneous petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashing and setting aside of the order dated 27.09.2021 passed by the Learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No. 9, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act came to be dismissed in default.

2. Briefly stated, the petitioner-company had instituted a complaint under section 138 of the N.I. Act against the respondent, which was duly registered and was pending for adjudication before the learned trial court. The matter was fixed for hearing on 09.03.2021 and thereafter, adjourned to 19.04.2021.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that during the said period, the second wave of the COVID-19 panemic had spread across the country and functioning of the Courts was restricted to urgent matters. On account of prevailing pandemic situation and the general adjournments being granted, the petitioner and his counsel could not remain present before the trial Court. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that on 27.09.2021 the complaint had been dismissed in default.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the absence of the petitioner was neither intentional nor deliberate but was occasioned due to extraordinary circumstances prevailing during the pandemic. It is further submitted that the petitioner had been diligently pursuing the matter earlier and dismissal of the complaint has resulted in grave prejudice, depriving the petitioner of its legal remedy.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgment in support of his arguments:

“ Chand Rani Vs Sushma Rani ” reported in CRM-M-41876-2024 order dated 29.08.2024.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the order passed by the learned trial Court warrants no interference and hence, the instant criminal misc. petition be dismissed.

7. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the material available on record.

8. It is well settled that procedural laws are handmaids of justice and should not be allowed to defeat substantive rights. The power to dismiss a complaint in default must be exercised cautiously, particularly in cases under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, where the complainant seeks enforcement of a statutory right.

9. The record reflects that prior to the impugned dismissal, the petitioner had been prosecuting the complaint and there is nothing on record to suggest any deliberate negligence or lack of bonafides. The explanation furnished regarding non-appearance during the pandemic period appears to be reasonable and plausible, especially considering the unprecedented disruption caused by COVID-19. In the case of “ Chand Rani Vs Sushma Rani ” reported in CRM-M-41876-2024 order dated 29.08.2024, the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in para.4 of the Order held as under:

“4. After hearing Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and going through the facts of the case, this court finds that the complaint has been dismissed for non-prosecution. This Court also finds that absence of the petitioner as well as his counsel is totally unintentional and hence, the complaint should be decided on merits, after hearing both the sides, in accordance with the law.”

10. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned trial court ought to have adopted a liberal approach in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Di