SATYANARAYAN RAMESHWAR AGRAWAL, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION BUSINESS, PROP. PRAGATI KRUSHI SEVA KENDRA, R/O. LONI FATA, RISOD, DISTRICT WASHIM Vs. RAMESH VISHAWANNATHAPPA DEOKAR, AGED ADULT, OCCUPATION BUSINESS, PROP. RAMESH KRUSHI SEVA KENDRA, PANKANWERGAON, R/O. PANKANWERGAON, TQ. SENGAON, DISTRICT HINGOLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present appeal, the appellant is seeking quashment of the order dated 10.01.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Risod in Summary Criminal Case No. 833/2007 decided on 10.01.2011.

(2.) Heard Shri V.K. Paliwal, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, Shri O.Y. Kashid, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Shri A.K. Bangadkar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.2/State.

(3.) The appellant is the original complainant, who has lodged Summary Criminal Case No. 833 of 2007. The case of the appellant/complainant can be summarized that the respondent No.1/accused was issued a cheque of INR 2,08,000.00 with an assurance that on presentation of cheque, the same will be encashed. The cheque was thus deposited and the same was returned "unpaid" on account of insufficient funds. The appellant/complainant left with no choice but to file a complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 2007. On 16.12.2010, the learned Judge, by observing the absence of complainant, kept the matter for dismissal on the next date. On 10.01.2011, neither the complainant nor his counsel was present. The learned Judge, considering the absence of the party and the counsel representing the party and also considering the fact that the complainant failed to lead any evidence, dismissed the complaint. The complainant/applicant then approached the Court with an application for restoration. The grounds raised in the application for restoration were the inability of the complainant/applicant attending the Court due to ill health and as the matter was transferred to a morning session Court, the learned Counsel representing the complainant was not aware of the fact and failed to attend the Court. On these grounds, the application for restoration was filed on behalf of the complainant/applicant. The learned JMFC, Risod finding fault with the complainant for his absence as well absence on the two dates i.e. 16.12.2010 and 10th Jan., 2011 as well as failure of the complainant/applicant to lead evidence and also that the order was passed by the Court having concurrent jurisdiction, dismissed the application.