BHUPENDRA SINGH Vs. SAKET KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by order dated 22.12.2014 passed in unregistered Criminal Complaint Case (Bhupendra Singh v. Saket Kumar) under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act by learned JMFC, Vidisha, the complainant has preferred this revision under Sections 397 and 401 read with Section 482 of Cr. P. C. for setting aside the impugned order and to restore the criminal complaint case.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant/petitioner filed a complaint case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act claiming dishonour of cheque issued by the respondent on 15.01.2008. The complaint case was pending since 07.03.2008. Despite orders, the complainant failed to pay process fee for summoning the accused/respondent since 30.12.2013. On 22.12.2014, the complainant/petitioner filed an application for issuing perpetual warrant against the accused/ respondent. By the impugned order held that the criminal case is pending for more than 5 years and since 30.12.2013, the petitioner/complainant despite orders, did not pay the process fee nor he paid the process fee earlier and has filed an application for perpetual warrant, exercising the powers under Section 204 (4), Cr. P. C., the learned JMFC dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused.

(3.) The complainant/petitioner assailed the impugned order on various grounds. As per the complainant, he deposited process fee earlier on several times. Because of inaction of the authorities responsible for execution of warrant, the warrant could not be executed though the matter is pending since 2008. The learned Trial Court instead of providing an opportunity to the complainant/petitioner benefited the accused by the impugned order. Before dismissal of the criminal complaint, no peremptory order has been passed. No warning, to the petitioner/complainant, was given and the complaint was dismissed acquitting the accused which has resulted the failure of justice. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the mistake of the petitioner is a bona fide one. Requested to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, in the interest of justice, it is prayed to setaside the impugned order and to restore the criminal complaint case so that justice can be done with the petitioner.