VIVEK CHOUDHARY Vs. NARENDRA RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is finally heard at motion stage.

(2.) This appeal is filed under Sec. 378 (4) of Cr.P.C. against the order dtd. 4/5/2018 whereby complaint case No. 29825/2006 (Vivek Choudhary Vs. Narendra Rai) under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter referred to as N.I. Act) has been dismissed in the absence of complainant.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant filed a complaint under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act before the learned JMFC on 1/11/2006. Complainant could not appear before the trial Court on 4/5/2018, in his absent learned trial Court dismissed the complaint case under Sec. 256 of Cr.P.C. and acquitted the respondent/accused. He further submitted that learned Magistrate has not taken into note that on 12/4/2018, respondent/accused had paid cheque amount of Rs.50,000.00 to the appellant/complainant. There was a possibility of compromise between the parties due to which complainant did not appear in the Court on 4/5/2018. Learned JMFC has dismissed the complaint case without assigning proper reasons. Complainant was pursuing complaint case for the last 12 years for getting his money back from the respondent/accused. Though he got his money of Rs.50,000.00 back but he still has to take remaining amount back from the respondent/accused. On account of compromise between the parties, appellant/complainant had not appeared before the trial Court on 4/5/2018. In such fact situation learned JMFC, Jabalpur instead of dismissing the complaint was required to adjourn the same. Impugned order is bad in law. Thus, it has been prayed that order of dismissal of complaint dtd. 4/5/2018 being erroneous and against the very concept of provision of Sec. 256 of Cr.P.C. be set aside.