Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 168 (UTT)

ARVINDER SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2012-04-19

PRAFULLA C.PANT

body2012
JUDGMENT Heard. 2. By means Of this petition, moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short of Cr.P.C), the petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 06.05.2009, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, II, Dehradun, in criminal complaint case no. 422 of 2008 Arvinder Singh vs. Jag Narain, relating to offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, whereby said court has dismissed the criminal complaint for non prosecution under section 256 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner has further challenged order dated 18.04.2011, passed by Additional Sessions Judgel/Ist Fast Track Court Dehradun, in criminal revision no. 90 of 2009, whereby the said revision was dismissed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the criminal complaint was filed before Special Judicial Magistrate, I, Dehradun, by the petitioner Arvinder Singh against present respondent no. 2 Jagnarayan relating to offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, after cheque no. 115342 dated 7.04.2004, for an amount of Rs. 81,000/- was dishonoured by the bankers. It appears that the present respondent no. 2 was summoned by the trial court after proceeding under section 200/202 Cr.P.C., by exercising powers under section 204 (Cr.P.C.). It appears that 06.05.2009, was the date fixed in the case on which date the complainant did not appear,and the Magistrate exercised its powers under section 256 Cr.P.C., dismissed the criminal complaint, and the accused stood acquitted. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to the principle of law laid down in Mohd. Azeem vs. A. Venkatesh and another (2002) 7 SCC, page 726, and it is argued that the petitioner (complainant) could not be left remedy less as he could not turn up on the date fixed by the trial court, and the counsel had wrongly noted said date as 14.05.2009. 5. On the other hand, on behalf of the respondent no. 2, it is argued that section 256 Cr.P.C, itself provides that if the complainant does not turn up in a summons case, the trial court has to acquit him. 6. Having considered submissions of learned counsel forthe parties, and after going through the affidavit on record and further considering the principle of law laid down in Mohd. Azeem case (supra), this Court is of the view that it is a fit case for exercise of powers under section 482 Cr.P.C., for securing the ends of justice. 6. Having considered submissions of learned counsel forthe parties, and after going through the affidavit on record and further considering the principle of law laid down in Mohd. Azeem case (supra), this Court is of the view that it is a fit case for exercise of powers under section 482 Cr.P.C., for securing the ends of justice. 7. Accordingly, the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., is allowed.The impugned orders are hereby quashed. The criminal complaint case no. 422 of 2008 Arvinder Singh vs. Jag Narain, relating to offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, shall stand restored in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, II, Dehradun. Parties are directed to appear before the said court on 14.05.2012.