PADAM SINGH SAINI Vs. MEGH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is maintained by the appellant, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 23.12.2015, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.III, Mandi, District Mandi, (H.P) , in Criminal Complaint No.196/2015.

(2.) The key facts, giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred to as the 'complainant') maintained the complaint, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') against the respondent/accused (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') . As per the complainant, on 10.10.2014, complainant presented a cheque, bearing No.159566, dated 17.9.2014, amounting Rs.1, 00, 000/-, drawn on State Bank of India, Branch Pandoh, District Mandi, H.P. The said cheque was presented and the same was dishonoured by the accused's banker, vide memo, dated 10.10.2014 for the reason "Funds Insufficient". Thereafter, the complainant served the accused through registered notice and demanded the cheque amount, which was duly served upon the accused, but the accused had neither replied nor had arranged for the payment of the said cheque and on his failure the complainant maintained the complaint before the learned Court below. The learned Court below issued notice for the service of accused on 23.12015, on the said date, the complainant was under the impression that the learned counsel will appear on his behalf, before the learned Court and could not appear, the learned counsel also not appeared before the learned Court below as and when the said case was called, as the learned counsel was busy in conducting the criminal trial before the learned lower Appellate Court and when appeared in the court regarding the said complaint and enquired about the case, then it come to know to the learned counsel that the learned Court below had dismissed the complaint of complainant, under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and acquitted the accused, vide order dated 23.12015.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellantcomplainant has argued that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is unjust, unreasonable and liable to be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused- respondent has argued that as the appellant-complainant was unable to appear before the learned Court below and prays that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. He has further argued that there is no irregularity and illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Court below.