J.S. ENGINEERING WORKS Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') the petitioner has assailed order dated 07.12.2013 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate (North -West) , Rohini, Delhi whereby CC No.269/04/13 filed by the petitioner was dismissed for non -appearance of the petitioner and non -prosecution of the case.

(2.) HENCE , the petitioner filed a complaint for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act. After recording pre -summoning evidence, respondent Nos.2 and 3 were summoned. Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was served on respondent Nos.2 and 3 on 03.04.2013. Thereafter, respondent Nos.2 and 3 moved an application under Section 145(2) of NI Act and the case was adjourned to 28.09.2013 for reply and arguments on said application. On 28.09.2013, no one appeared on behalf of petitioner and Court notice was issued to the complainant for 07.12.2013. Again nobody appeared on behalf of petitioner and the complaint was dismissed for non -appearance of complainant and non -prosecution of the matter, vide order dated 07.12.2013. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. was served on the respondent Nos.2 and 3 on 03.04.2013, application under Section 145(2) of NI Act was filed and the case was fixed for arguments on the said application on 03.08.2013. The case was transferred to the Court of Mr. Dharmender Singh, learned Metropolitan Magistrate -05 (North West) , New Delhi on 03.08.2013 and the case was adjourned to 28.09.2013. On 28.09.2013 when learned counsel for the petitioner reached to the transferee court, it was revealed that the matter had already been taken up and was renotified for 07.12.2013. Again on 07.12.2013 when counsel for petitioner appeared before the trial court she was informed that matter has already been taken up and orders were reserved. Learned counsel for petitioner also submitted that the petitioner had already adduced pre -summoning evidence and notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was served on the respondent Nos.2 and 3. The trial court could have proceeded further in accordance with law and the complaint should have been decided on merits.