MUKESH KUMAR Vs. SOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) None has appeared on behalf of the respondent, despite repeated calls in the pre-lunch session and even during the post lunch session. It is pertinent to mention here that even on the last date of hearing, none had appeared on behalf of the respondent, therefore, the case was adjourned for today.

(2.) The present appeal has been filed under Sec. 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) against the impugned order dtd. 14/12/2022, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmour District at Nahan, H.P., in Criminal Complaint case No.86/3 of 2022, whereby the complaint filed by the appellant-complainant under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, 'NI Act') has been dismissed for want of prosecution.

(3.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant-complainant used to appear before the learned trial Court on each hearing, but on 14/12/2022, when the case was listed for service of the respondent through bailable warrant, he was not present and was under the impression that his counsel would appear on his behalf. However, on the said date, the counsel for the appellant also could not appear before the learned trial Court as his father was ill and he had taken his father to the hospital. Learned counsel for the appellant had requested one of his colleagues to appear on his behalf, who also failed to appear in the Court, hence, the learned trial Court dismissed the complaint for non appearance of the complainant-appellant, vide order dtd. 14/12/2022.