K. K. CONSTRUCTION Vs. BHAGWAN SINGH POSWAL CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal under Sec. 378(4) Cr.P.C. challenges the impugned order dtd. 5/4/2022 passed by the Special Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act) Cases, No.12, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Headquarter Sanganer in Criminal Case No.1336/21 by which the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred as "the complainant") has been dismissed for want of prosecution under Sec. 256 Cr.P.C. and the accused-respondents (hereinafter referred as "the respondents") have been acquitted of the charge under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "Act of 1881").

(2.) Counsel for the complainant submits that a complaint under Sec. 138 of the Act of 1881 was submitted by the complainant against the respondents initially before the Court of Special Metropolitan Magistrate, NI Act Cases, No.3, Jaipur Metro and the same remained pending before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate No.17, Jaipur Metro-I for a considerable time since 2013 till 2021. Counsel submits that almost on each and every occasion, counsel for the complainant appeared before the Court concerned and thereafter the case was transferred to the Court of Special Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act) Cases, No.12, Jaipur Metropolitan-Ist, Headquarter Sanganer by the orders of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur Metro-I. Counsel submits that after transfer of the aforesaid complaint, the complainant could not appear before the Special Metropolitan Magistrate on 2-3 occasions. Counsel submits that even the accused were not putting their appearance before the concerned Court and their arrest warrants were issued on 27/1/2022. Counsel submits that on account of absence of the complainant and his counsel on 5/4/2022, the complaint was dismissed in default and the respondents were acquitted, in terms of the mandate contained under Sec. 256 Cr.P.C. Counsel submits that absence of the complainant was bonafide, therefore, the order dtd. 5/4/2022 be recalled and the complaint be restored to its original number.

(3.) Per contra, counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the complainant and submitted that even on 2-3 dates prior to passing of the impugned order dtd. 5/4/2022, the complainant failed to appear before the trial Court, hence the trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the complaint for want of prosecution. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted.