Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 788 (PAT)

Rajeev Kumar v. State of Bihar

2014-07-17

ASHUTOSH KUMAR

body2014
Ashutosh Kumar, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State as well as the Opposite Party No. 2. 2. The petitioner, by the present application, has challenged the order dated 7th of December, 2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate in Complaint Case No. 2766 (C) of 2003, refusing the exemption from personal appearance. 3. The petitioner, in the same breath has challenged the revisional order also dated 11th of April, 2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-F.T.C. No. V, Patna whereby such an order of refusal to exempt him from personal appearance has been sustained. 4. During the pendency of the proceeding, this court vide order dated 3rd of January 2011 issued notice to Franco India Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. in order to facilitate resolving the dispute between the transporter and the petitioner. This Court was of the opinion that the main looser in the whole transaction is Franco India Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. which had to hand over the medicines to the transporter, who in turn had to hand over the medicines to the petitioner. The petitioner had taken the delivery of medicines without giving any receipt. It further appears that on appearance of Franco India Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd., the parties became ready to settle the dispute and pay the outstanding dues. 5. Considering the stand of the parties, vide order dated 2nd of May, 2011, this application was admitted for hearing. However, the opportunity was given to Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 to appear before this Court to settle the matter as also to mention the case for getting an early date for hearing. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that an agreement has been arrived, at now, between the petitioner and Opposite Party No. 2. As agreed upon between the parties, the petitioner today is ready with a draft amounting to Rs. 1 lac and is willing to give it to the counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2. 7. In any view of the matter, since this application which is preferred against the order by which exemption of personal appearance of the petitioner was refused, was admitted for hearing. After the long passage of time and with the agreement having been arrived at between the parties, this petition looses its relevance. 7. In any view of the matter, since this application which is preferred against the order by which exemption of personal appearance of the petitioner was refused, was admitted for hearing. After the long passage of time and with the agreement having been arrived at between the parties, this petition looses its relevance. It appears that such an agreement could be arrived at between the parties because the petition was kept pending and further proceedings in the Court below remained stayed. The pendency of this application in this Court has done more good than harm for all the parties in dispute. 8. Thus, the orders impugned namely the original order refusing the exemption to the petitioner from personal appearance and the revisional order, sustaining the same, are set aside. The petitioner would have the exemption of his personal appearance before the Court below, where the proceedings of the case after the disposal of the present application, would revive. Any further observation with respect to the finality of the cause between the parties would not be required here as this application was directed at something else. However, exercising the powers under Section 482 and keeping in view the objectives of such inherent powers for advancement of justice, it is hereby observed that the Court below, on revival of proceedings would hear the parties and on being satisfied that the lis between them is over, would pass necessary orders in accordance with law. Let it be noted that the draft which Mr. P.C. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner has brought before this Court is being returned to him so that he may give the draft to the counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 in the Court below, subject to the permission of the Court. It is needless to state that any further pendency of this case in the Court below would be meaningless and would be an abuse of the process of the Court. 9. The application is thus allowed.