Jagdish Grover vs Om Parkash

S.S. Grewal, J. (Oral)

This revision petition is directed against the order of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Abohar dated 7th of May, 1993, whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner under Sections 451/457/420 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 138 to 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act amended upto date by Act No. 66 of 1988 was dismissed in default and the accused was discharged.

According to the allegations made in the complaint. Om Parkash respondent had borrowed Rs. 10,000/ from the petitioner on 5th of January, 1989. The respondent did not make any payment of the aforesaid amount and issued a cheque in favour of the petitioner for Rs. 10, 000/ The said cheque was deposited by the petitioner with the local Bank on 2141989 but the said cheque was dishonoured. The petitioner again met the respondent and informed him about the fact that the cheque had been dishonoured. The respondent promised to deposit the amount in his account so that the cheque may be cleared by depositing the cheque again in the Bank on 6th of July, 1989. Again the cheque was dishonoured. The petitioner approached the respondent for the third time to pay the said amount but the respondent again promised to deposit the amount in his account on 1481989. The cheque was again dishonoured.

The trial Court after recording the preliminary evidence framed charge under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 138 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act in this case vide its order dated 11th April, 1991. Even after the framing of the charge the learned trial Court dismissed the complaint in default on account of nonappearance of the complainant on 7th of May, 1993. The impugned order referred to above cannot be legally sustained inasmuch as once a charge has been framed the complaint could not be dismissed in default.

For the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed and the impugned order for dismissing the complaint in default is set aside. In case the complainant does not act diligently it would be open for the trial court to close the evidence of the complainant and pass appropriate orders on merits according to law. The petitioner, through his counsel is directed to appear before the trial Court on 1711994. The trial Court after summoning the respondent shall dispose of this case expeditiously preferably within three months. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for compliance, forthwith.