GOPAL DASS Vs. SURINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Service upon the respondent has not been effected so far. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there were four complaints filed under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, inter se parties. Out of these, three complaints are still alive and pending before the Trial Court, wherein the respondent/accused is regularly appearing. It is, however, submitted that after the dismissal of the present complaint for want of prosecution, the respondent/accused has deliberately avoided service in the present proceedings.

(2.) It is further submitted that all the four complaints were being pursued before the same Court. Unfortunately, Complaint No. 114, which came to be listed on 11/12/2019, was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dtd. 12/10/2022. According to counsel for the petitioner, the said dismissal has seriously prejudiced the cause of the petitioner/complainant. It is contended that the petitioner has, therefore, invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of the said order, on the ground that the complaint could not have been dismissed for want of prosecution at the stage when the matter was still pending for the appearance of the respondent/accused. It is urged that the complaint got segregated from the other three matters which continue to remain pending before the Trial Court, whereas the present complaint alone came to be dismissed for want of prosecution.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent has no real contest to the restoration of the present complaint and, therefore, the ends of justice would be served if the complaint is restored to its original number by exercising the inherent powers of this Court under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. It is argued that the complaint ought not to have been dismissed for want of prosecution and the Court below ought to have first secured the presence of the respondent/accused so as to enable it to proceed further in the matter. It is also submitted that although the respondent has been notified about the filing of the present petition, he has chosen not to appear before this Court, whereas he continues to appear in the other three complaints pending between the parties. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondent was unaware of the filing of the present petition. It may well be that after the dismissal of Complaint No. 114, the respondent assumed that nothing survives for the complainant to pursue further.