K.R. SHANMUGAM Vs. S. GUNASEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/complainant has come forward with this appeal seeking to set aside the order of the trial court, dismissing the complaint lodged by him under Section 250 Cr.P.C., read with Section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, against the respondent/accused herein.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant states that they filed a complaint in S.T.C.No.1479 of 2007, before the trial court and the same was dismissed on 09.12.2011 under Section 250 Cr.P.C., due to non appearance of the appellant/petitioner before the court.

(3.) It is stated that the respondent/accused herein, issued 3 cheques in various dates for a total sum of Rs. 6,50,000/- to discharge his liability and all the 3 cheques were dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Hence, the appellant/complainant herein, after complying with all the requirements under Negotiable Instruments Act, preferred the complaint, against the respondent herein, and the same was pending before the trial court, Judicial Magistrate No. I, Coimbatore. While the complaint was pending, the appellant/complainant was appearing before the court regularly, he met with a Road Accident on 26.10.2011 and for the same, he took treatment in a Private Hospital in Coimbatore. It was only due to the accident, the complainant was unable to appear before the court, nor give instruction to his counsel. S.T.C.No.1479 of 2007 was originally posted for hearing on 15.12.2011. But the same was taken up for hearing on 09.12.2011 and due to non appearance of the complainant, it was dismissed. According to the appellant, his non appearance nor his failure to instruct his counsel was not wilful, but it was only due to the accident he met with. He also produced discharge summary from the hospital, where he took treatment, wherein, it is stated that he was admitted on 27.10.2011 and discharged on 01.11.2011. It is evident from the discharge summary that the appellant herein met with a Road Accident and suffered injuries. In such circumstances, the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant pleaded to set aside the impugned order since it will cause prejudice and untold misery to the appellant, if the order is not set aside.