JAGDISH GROVER Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Abohar dated 7th of May, 1993, whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner under Sections 451/457/420 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 138 to 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act amended upto date by Act No. 66 of 1988 was dismissed in default and the accused was discharged.

(2.) ACCORDING to the allegations made in the complaint, Om Parkash respondent had borrowed Rs. 10. 000/- from the petitioner on 5th of January, 1989. The respondent did not make any payment of the aforesaid amount and issued a cheque in favour of the petitioner for Rs. 10,000/ -. The said cheque was deposited by the petitioner with the local Bank on 21. 4. 1989 but the said cheque was dishonoured. The petitioner again met the respondent and informed him about the fact that the cheque had been dishonoured. The respondent promised to deposit the amount in his account so that the cheque may be cleared by depositing the cheque again in the Bank on 6th of July, 1989. Again the cheque was dishonoured. The petitioner approached the respondent for the third time time to pay the said amount but the respondent again promised to deposit the amount in his account on 14. 8. 1989. The cheque was again dishonoured.

(3.) THE trial Court after recording the preliminary evidence framed charge under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act in this case vide its order dated 11th April, 1991. Even after the framing of the charge the learned trial Court dismissed the complaint in default on account of non-appearance of the complainant on 7th of May, 1993. The impugned order referred to above cannot be legally sustained inasmuch as once a charge has been framed the complaint could not be dismissed in default.