PIARA SINGH Vs. DALJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner prays for quashing of complaint No. 196 dated 28.07.2007 'Daljit Singh v. Piara Singh' (Annexure P1), filed before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phagwara, District Kapurthala and order dated 07.08.2012 (Annexure P4), passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, whereby the complaint filed by the respondent, is ordered to be restored. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the 1881 Act'), on the premise that the petitioner had issued a cheque of Rs. 2,50,000/ - dated 19.05.2007 in favour of the respondent to discharge his liability and the said cheque was dishonoured with remarks 'funds insufficient' on its presentation to the Bank and the petitioner failed to make payment of the cheque amount within the stipulated period, after receipt of notice, issued by the complainant. The complaint of the respondent was dismissed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phagwara, vide order dated 16.03.2011 (Annexure P2). The respondent filed revision petition before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala and the revisional Court exceeded jurisdiction, accepted the revision petition, set aside order of acquittal and restored the complaint case, which is now pending before the trial Magistrate. It is argued with vehemence that the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, is illegal, therefore, cannot be sustained as only an appeal is maintainable before this Court under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. against acquittal in a complaint case. In support of her contentions, she has placed reliance upon 'R.P.G. Transmission Limited v. Sakura Seimitsu (I) Limited and others',, 2005 (4) R.C.R. (Cri) 440 (Delhi High Court) and 'Om Gayatri and Co. and others v. State of Maharashtra and another', : 2006 Crl. L.R. 601(1) (Bombay High Court).

(2.) DALJIT Singh, Respondent failed to appear, despite service, therefore, there is no counter to the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) A perusal of the records reveal that the criminal complaint filed by the respondent under Section 138 of the 1881 Act was dismissed by the trial Court in the absence of the complainant, on 16.03.2011. A relevant extract from order dated 16.03.2011, passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phagwara, is quoted thus: -