GURNAM SINGH vs SUDERSHAN KUMAR GUPTA

In the instant petition filed under Section 561-A Cr. P.C, petitioner seeks quashment of the order dated 26th March, 2018 passed by the Court of

learned Sessions Judge, Kathua, by virtue of which the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 23rd January, 2018 passed by

learned District Judicial Mobile Magistrate, Kathua has been dismissed and right to cross examination the witnesses of complainant has been closed.

In this petition, it has been stated that order impugned is against the law and facts of the case, thereby causing miscarriage of justice. Courts below

have failed to exercise the jurisdiction, as such, the same deserves to be quashed.

From the perusal of pleadings, it is evident that the respondent had filed a complaint on dated 17th July, 2007 under Section 138 for dishonor of

cheque of Rs,30,000/- of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against petitioner , which is pending disposal before

the Court of District Mobile Magistrate, Kathua titled,“ Sudershan Kumar Gupta Vs. Gurnam Singh and others.â€​

The respondent filed affidavits on 09th July, 2013 and 16th August, 2018 in the Complaint as his evidence. Various opportunities were given by trial

Court below to the petitioner for cross-examination of the witnesses, but all in vain.

Heard counsel for petitioner at admission stage. He has argued and reiterated all grounds taken in petition. I have considered the contentions.

Accused/petitioner always tried to protract the trial, with one mode to another. Generally, he has remained absent as is evident from various

interims orders, copies of which has been attached. Even costs of Rs. 1200/- was imposed, but even then no cross examination was conducted. The

offence under section 138 is not a natural crime like hurt or murder. It is an offence created by a legal fiction in the Statute. It is a civil liability

transformed into a criminal liability, under restricted conditions by way of an amendment to the Act, which is brought into force only in 1989. The trial

in the case has to be completed within 6 months as per amended section 143 of N.I. Act. But trickster accused always tries to abuse the process of

law and protract the trial without any sufficient reasons. If such like accused are not discouraged then, very purpose and object of the Act will be

forfeited.

In present case already more than 10 years has passed, but trial has not been completed. In view of above, this petition is dismissed and order of

court below is upheld. Copy of this order be sent to trial court to expedite the matter.