JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. Silva, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant/appellant and Mr. Zaveri, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no. 4 and 5. 2. Leave is granted to file the appeal against the impugned order. Criminal Misc. Application No. 207/2011 stands disposed of accordingly. Registry to register the appeal, forthwith. 3. The appeal stands admitted. 4. Mr. Zaveri, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no. 4 and 5 waives service of notice on behalf of the said respondents, after admission. By consent heard forthwith. 5. It is seen that when the impugned order was passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Margao (trial magistrate), the other respondents, namely respondents no. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 (accused nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7) were not served. In the circumstances above, there is no need to send notices of the present appeal to the said respondents (accused persons). 6. By this appeal, the appellant, who is the complainant in Criminal Case No. 60/OA/NI/2008/F has challenged the order dated 15/06/2011 passed by the learned trial Magistrate, thereby dismissing the complaint for non-prosecution. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said case. The complainant had filed the said complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against the accused persons. Only the accused no. 4 was served in the said case whereas the accused nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 were yet to be served. 7. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant has made available to me for perusal the certified copies of the roznamas in the said Criminal Case No. 60/OA/NI/2008/F. It is seen that from time to time, after the order dated 04/11/2008, of issuance of process, the complainant had taken steps for service on all the accused persons in the said case and accused no. 4 was duly served. No doubt, there was some laxity on the part of the complainant to take steps promptly. 8. As per the roznama, on 31/01/2011, in the said suit, since summonses issued to accused nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 on 31/12/2010 were not returned back, it was taken for granted that they were not served and the complainant was directed to take steps and the matter was adjourned to 25/02/2011. 8. As per the roznama, on 31/01/2011, in the said suit, since summonses issued to accused nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 on 31/12/2010 were not returned back, it was taken for granted that they were not served and the complainant was directed to take steps and the matter was adjourned to 25/02/2011. On 25/02/2011, it was observed by the trial Magistrate that the said accused nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 were not served and last opportunity was granted to the complainant to take steps for their service. However, it appears that even till the next date of hearing i.e. till 16/03/2011, no steps were taken by the complainant for service on the said accused nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7. However, a perusal of the roznama dated 16/03/2011 reveals that the matter was fixed for settlement as on 16/03/2011. The said roznama dated 16/03/2011 says that last and final opportunity is given to the parties to settle the matter on 18/04/2011. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the complainant that since the matter was fixed for settlement, the complainant did not take steps for service on the other defendants, since if the matter was settled, their presence was not required. 9. It is seen from roznama dated 18/04/2011 in the said suit that a direction was given to the complainant to take steps to serve accused nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7, failing which the matter will be dismissed for non-prosecution. However, it is nowhere stated in the roznama that settlement was not possible. It so happens that even thereafter though there was time almost of about 2 months, the complainant did not take steps for service on the said unserved accused persons. It is, therefore, that on 15/06/2011, the learned trial Magistrate dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution. 10. However, in the interest of justice, the trial Magistrate ought to have given one more final opportunity to the complainant by awarding appropriate costs for inconvenience that was caused to the accused no. 4. I am, therefore, of the view that in the interest of justice, the order of dismissal for non-prosecution should be set aside so that the complainant gets an opportunity to fight out the matter on merits, which pertains to dishonour of cheques of the amount of about Rs. 2 Lakhs. 4. I am, therefore, of the view that in the interest of justice, the order of dismissal for non-prosecution should be set aside so that the complainant gets an opportunity to fight out the matter on merits, which pertains to dishonour of cheques of the amount of about Rs. 2 Lakhs. But, the fact remains that inconvenience was caused to the accused no. 4 for said inaction on the part of the complainant which has to be made good by awarding appropriate costs. Costs of Rs. 10,000/- is deemed to be appropriate and reasonable. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed. (a) The impugned order dated 15/06/2011 is quashed and set aside. (b) The complaint under case No. 60/OA/NI/2008/F shall stand restored back to the file of the learned trial Magistrate, subject to the complainant depositing an amount of Rs. 10,000/- before the learned Magistrate as condition precedent for the same, before the date fixed for appearance of parties. The said costs shall be paid to the Accused no. 4. (c) Parties to appear before the trial Magistrate on 9th April, 2014 at 2.30 p.m. 12. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.