RAJA FINANCE COMPANY Vs. BHUPINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short) for quashing of the impugned order dated 14.8.2008 (Annexure P-l) and order dated 9.1.2009 (Annexure P-2).

(2.) THERE is no doubt that the Magistrate has power to dismiss the complaint on account of non deposit of requisite fee. However, the ends of justice require that a dispute is decided on merits.

(3.) SERVICE was sought to be effected on the respondent on the said address. However, the petitioner was asked to furnish correct address of the re spondent. It is surprising that on the same very address service was effected on the respondent in this petition. There is every possibility that the respondent might have played smart and succeeded in evading service of summons and the same led the trial Court to issue service through speed post and on furnishing of correct address. Apparently, the address given by the petitioner in the complaint was correct address and since the petitioner had already given the correct address of the respondent in the complaint, due to bona fide belief, he might not have thought it necessary to furnish the correct address. In the facts and circumstances of the case, since the service could not be effected on the respondent through ordinary process, the trial Court could have taken recourse to coercive methods. The petitioner did not stand to benefit by not doing the needful. Apparently, due to inadvertence, the needful could not be done by the petitioner in time. It is a settled proposition of law that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. Judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because of its capability of removing injustice and is expected to do so. In these circumstances, the ends of justice require that the complaint filed by the petitioner is decided on merits. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the inherent jurisdiction of this Court is liable to be exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice and to secure the ends of justice. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. The case is remanded back to the trial Court for disposal in accordance with law.