ORDER : 1. As common question of law and facts arise in both these petitions, they are disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. In both these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, respective petitioners - original complainant have prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the impugned orders passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Negotiable Instruments Act, Court No. 6, Ahmedabad passed below Exh.1 in dismissing the respective criminal case Nos. 77/2009 and 78/2009 for want of prosecution and not restoring the same to the file though the applications for restoration of the criminal case were submitted by the petitioner-original complainant on the same day. 3. Petitioner - Gujarat Gas Financial Services Ltd. is the original complainant of Criminal Case Nos. 77/2009 and 78/2009 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad which were filed against the private respondents herein for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as "NI Act"). It appears that the hearing of bo1.h the criminal cases were kept on 10th May, 2010 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Negotiable Instruments Act, Court No. 6, Ahmedabad and it appears that at the time when the criminal cases were taken up for hearing, nobody remained present on behalf of the complainant and therefore, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Negotiable Instruments Act, Court No. 6, Ahmedabad dismissed both the criminal cases for non-prosecution observing that though the criminal cases have been adjourned time and again for recording of the evidence on the behalf of the complainant, they are not remaining present. It appears that the representative of the company-original complainant was posted at Surat office and he left Surat in the early morning on 10.05.2010 for attending the proceedings of the aforesaid criminal cases, however, the train was delayed by more than approximately three hours due to derailment of another train and therefore, he could appear before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate at around 3 p.m. only and as soon as he came to know about dismissal of the aforesaid criminal cases for non-prosecution, immediately on the very day i.e. on 10.05.2010, submitted the applications to restore the said criminal cases to file narrating the facts stated herein above. However, the learned Metropolitan rejected the said applications by observing that the applications have been given after a long time. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid, petitioner-original complainant has preferred present Special Criminal Applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. Shri Devang Nanavati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner - original complainant has vehemently submitted that the learned Magistrate has materially erred in not restoring the criminal cases to file and maintaining the order of dismissal of the criminal cases for non-prosecution. It is submitted that as such the representative of the complainant, who was to appear before the learned Magistrate, who was stationed at Surat, proceeded to Ahmedabad in early morning on 10.05.2010 itself, however, due to derailment of another train, the train in which he was travelling was delayed by three hours and therefore, he could reach the Court only at 3.30 p.m. and as soon as he came to know about dismissal of the aforesaid criminal cases for non-prosecution, he submitted the applications immediately on the very day, however, unfortunately the learned Magistrate has dismissed the said applications and has not restored the criminal cases to file by observing that the applications were given after long time. It is submitted that as such the applications for restoration were submitted on the very day on which the applications were dismissed for non-prosecution and within two to three hours only. It is submitted that when the applications for restoration, of the criminal cases were given within two to three hours and on the same day, it cannot be said that the applications were given after long time, as observed by the learned Magistrate. It is submitted that in fact there was no mala fide intention on the part of the petitioner in not proceeding further with the criminal cases and/or to delay the proceedings. It is submitted that as such endeavour of every Court should be to decide and dispose of the case on merits rather than non-suiting the litigant on technical ground. It is submitted that in fact there was no mala fide intention on the part of the petitioner in not proceeding further with the criminal cases and/or to delay the proceedings. It is submitted that as such endeavour of every Court should be to decide and dispose of the case on merits rather than non-suiting the litigant on technical ground. It is submitted that when the applications for restoration were given on the very day and even if the learned Magistrate was of the opinion that the complainant and/or a party is trying to delay the proceedings, he could have restored the criminal case to file on imposing reasonable cost and/or conditional order ought to have been passed. It is submitted that however the learned Judge is not justified in not allowing the applications for restoration of the criminal case which were dismissed for non-prosecution though the same were submitted on the very day and within two to three hours. Therefore, it is requested to allow the present petitions. Shri Nanavati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has as such assured the Court that if the criminal cases are restored to file, in that case, they shall given fullest cooperation to the learned Magistrate in early disposal of the criminal cases and there shall not be any delay on their part. 5. Having heard Shri Nanavati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and considering the impugned orders, it is not in dispute that the criminal cases came to be dismissed for non-prosecution on 10.05.20 10 as nobody remained present on behalf of the complainant. It is also not in dispute that on the very day on which the criminal cases were dismissed for non-prosecution, applications were given to restore the criminal cases by giving cogent reasons by submitting that the Officer was coming from Surat in early train, however, due to derailment of another train, the train in which he was traveling was delayed by three hours and therefore, he could not reach the Court in time. In support of his above cause, the complainant produced the tickets also. However, the learned Magistrate dismissed the said applications by observing that the applications for restoration were given after long time. In support of his above cause, the complainant produced the tickets also. However, the learned Magistrate dismissed the said applications by observing that the applications for restoration were given after long time. When the applications were given on the same day and during the Court hours, it is very difficult to say that the applications for restoration were given after long time. Submitting the applications after three to five hours, cannot be said to be submitting the applications after long time. Petitioner has produced the relevant documents to show that there was derailment of another train and due to which the trains were delayed. Under the circumstances, there was a genuine reason which was beyond his control for not remaining present before the learned Magistrate in time i.e. at the time when the criminal cases were taken up for hearing. Therefore, when a sufficient ground was made out, as such the learned Magistrate ought to have restored the criminal cases to file and ought to have considered the criminal cases on merits. 6. Learned Magistrate ought to have appreciated that under normal circumstances, the endeavour of the Courts should be to decide the cases on merits rather than non-suiting the litigant on a technical ground. If for any reason the learned Magistrate is of the opinion that a litigant is trying to delay the proceedings, initially he is required to pass conditional order and adjourn the matter on imposition of cost and even thereafter also, if the delay is persisted, in that case, when there is no other alternative left with the Court, then and then only by narrating the facts and for how many times the matters are adjourned, who sought the adjournments etc. as a last resort, the Magistrate may dismiss the case for non-prosecution. However, in a case where a sufficient ground has been made out for not remaining present on date of hearing, Magistrate is required to required to restore the matter to file and if required, may pass conditional order. The Court is required to consider that whet is relevant is disposal of cases on merit and not dismissal of cases and that too on technical ground, without deciding the same on merits. The Court is required to consider that whet is relevant is disposal of cases on merit and not dismissal of cases and that too on technical ground, without deciding the same on merits. Only in an exceptional case and as a last resort, when it has been found that despite various adjournments, deliberately the litigant is trying to delay the proceedings with a mala fide intention, as a last resort only, the case may be dismissed for non-prosecution and even in such a case when the applications are given for restoration on the very day, the Magistrate may restore the same to file even by passing conditional order and/or in posing a reasonable cost so that ultimately the accused may not get the benefit and the case is disposed of on merits. 7. In the present case, as stated herein above, not only the applications were submitted for restoration of the criminal cases on the very day, it appears that a sufficient ground was made by the petitioner-original complainant for non-remaining present at the time when the criminal cases were taken up for hearing, due to delay in reaching of the train to Ahmedabad due to derailment of another train. However, despite the above, the learned Magistrate has dismissed the said applications for restoration of the criminal cases solely by observing that the applications were given after long time. It is not understood and appreciable how the applications for restoration of the criminal cases can be said to have been submitted after a long time when the same were submitted on the very day and that too within three to four hours. Under the circumstances, the impugned orders passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in dismissing the applications for restoration of the criminal cases in question and dismissing the criminal cases for non-prosecution, deserves to be quashed and set aside. As stated herein above, Shri Nanavati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner-original complainant has stated at the Bar that as such there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to delay the proceedings as in fact petitioner is the complainant and it is very eager to see that criminal cases are decided and disposed of at the earliest. He has assured the Court that the complainant shall give fullest co-operation to the learned Magistrate in early disposal of the aforesaid criminal cases. He has assured the Court that the complainant shall give fullest co-operation to the learned Magistrate in early disposal of the aforesaid criminal cases. When the criminal cases under Section 138 of the Neotiable Instruments Act are of the year 1999, even otherwise party to the criminal cases are bound to co-operate the learned Magistrate in early disposal of the criminal cases as though more than 11 years have passed, the criminal cases under Section 138 of the N.I, Act are still pending and there- fore, all concerned are directed to co-operate the learned Magistrate in early disposal of the aforesaid criminal cases. 8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, both the petitions succeed. Impugned orders passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Negotiable Instruments Act, Court No. 6, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case Nos. 77/2009 and 78/2009 in dismissing the applications submitted by the complainant to restore the criminal cases which were dis- missed for non-prosecution as well as the orders passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Negotiable Instruments Act, Court No. 6, Ahmedabad passed below Exh.1 in afore- said Criminal Case Nos. 77/2009 and 78/2009 in dismissing the aforesaid criminal cases for non-prosecution, are hereby quashed and set aside and the aforesaid criminal cases are restored to file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Negotiable Instruments Act, Court No. 6, Ahmedabad. As the Criminal Cases for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are pending since 1999, all concerned are directed to co-operate the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in early disposal of the aforesaid criminal cases. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent in each of the petitions. Petition allowed.