Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 72 (HP)

Gurdev Singh v. H. P. Gramin Bank

2020-01-04

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2020
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present petition has been maintained by the petitioner/accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing and setting aside the order dated 23.03.2019, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., in Case No.83/3 of 2015 titled as HPGB vs. Gurdev Singh whereby the opportunity of the petitioner-accused to produce/lead the defence evidence had been closed by the learned Trial Court. 2. Briefly stating the facts, giving rise to the present petition are that, against the petitioner, a complaint is filed by the complainant/respondent (hereinafter to be referred as the ('complainant-bank') under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The complaint is maintained for the dishonour of the cheque of Rs. 9,00,000/- (Rupees nine lacs) and it is pending adjudication in the learned Trial Court. 3. The learned Court below closed the evidence of the petitioner, who was respondent in the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, vide order dated 23.03.2019, which reads as under :- "23.3.19. Pt. Complainant with Sh. Manish Dadhwal, Advocate. Accused with Sh. Rahul Chandel, Advocate. No. Dws are present as steps not taken despite last opportunity. Hence evidence of the defence is hereby closed by the orders of the Court. Let the file be put up for arguments for 26.4.19." 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that one opportunity be granted to the petitioner to lead evidence, as he wanted to produce the copy of the FIR, which was lodged against the Managers of the Complainant-Bank. On the other hand, Ms. Devyani Sharma appearing for the Complainant-Bank has argued that the accused-petitioner was granted four opportunities by the learned Court below after his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for producing the defence evidence, but when on the four adjournments having been granted to the petitioner, he has neither taken any steps nor produced evidence in defence, his evidence was closed on 23.3.2019. She has further argued that the petitioner-accused has maintained the petition even before this Court after eight months of the passing of the order and the petition deserves dismissal. 6. She has further argued that the petitioner-accused has maintained the petition even before this Court after eight months of the passing of the order and the petition deserves dismissal. 6. In rebuttal the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that subject to heavy costs one opportunity be granted to lead the defence evidence, otherwise, the petitioner will suffer injustice. 7. To appreciated the arguments adduced by the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record in detail. 8. The orders of the learned Court below are gone into and it seems that the petitioner has not taken due care to lead evidence in defence. At the same point of time, copy of the FIR (Annexure-P3) is also gone into and this Court finds that to meet the interest of justice and to give a chance of a fair trial to the parties, the same is necessary for the adjudication of the case by the learned Trial Court. However, as the petitioner was not diligent enough, hence, the heavy cost is required to be put upon the petitioner. Taking into consideration, the amount of the cheque which is Rs. 9,00,000/- (Rs. Nine lacs) and the complaint of the bank is pending in the learned Trial Court since for more than five years, hence, petitioner is required to be burdened with heavy costs. 9. In these circumstances, the petitioner-accused is granted one opportunity to lead defence evidence subject to the cost of Rs.25,000/-. The Court below will grant only one opportunity to the petitioner-accused to lead defence evidence only, in case, he pay the costs, which will be paid to the complainant-Bank, on the next date of hearing in the Court below, which is fixed on 10.01.2020. 10. Parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the learned Court below on 10th January, 2020. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.