2022 (6) TMI 606 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - non-issuance of summons of the revision on respondent/complainant - HELD THAT - It is apparent from the record that in revision petition steps were not taken. The revision petitioner not only refused to take steps, but, asked for dismissal, and therefore, the revision petition was dismissed. Thus, there is no dispute that the matter was not decided on merits. Therefore, in order to sub-serve the ends of justice, the petitioner can be permitted to agitate his grievance in the revision petition on merits. However, record indicates that the petitioner has refused to take steps, as well as asked the learned Judge to dismiss his own revision, which speaks volume. It is desirable to restore the revision petition on certain terms, since revision petition was not decided on merits - Criminal Writ Petition is allowed.

Issues involved:
Challenge to quash order of issuance of process, challenge to order initiating action under Section 421 of CrPC, challenge to order dismissing Criminal Revision, non-compliance with order of compensation, dismissal of revision petition for want of prosecution, refusal to take steps in the revision petition.

Analysis:
The petitioner, the original accused in a criminal case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, raised several challenges in the petition. These challenges included seeking to quash the order of issuance of process dated 17.12.2020, the order dated 02.05.2022 initiating action under Section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for non-compliance with a compensation order, and the order dated 02.06.2022 dismissing the Criminal Revision filed by the petitioner. The respondent had initially filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the Magistrate had issued process on prima facie satisfaction. Subsequently, the Magistrate directed the petitioner to pay 20% of the disputed cheque amount as compensation, which was not complied with, leading to the filing of an application under Section 421 of CrPC for appropriate action. The Magistrate then issued a warrant for compliance with the compensation order, which was challenged in the dismissed Criminal Revision (No.128/2022). The revision was dismissed for want of prosecution as the summons were not served on the respondent, and the petitioner's advocate refused to take steps, even requesting the court to dismiss the revision petition.

The petitioner's counsel contended that the court's recording of events was incorrect and denied the happenings as noted in the impugned order. Despite the allegations and counter-allegations, it was evident from the record that steps were not taken in the revision petition, and the petitioner not only refused to take steps but also requested dismissal, resulting in the revision petition being dismissed without being decided on merits. To serve the ends of justice, the court decided to restore the revision petition on certain terms, allowing the petitioner to agitate the grievance on merits. The court emphasized that the matter was not decided on merits due to the petitioner's refusal to take steps and request for dismissal, indicating the need to restore the revision petition for a fair consideration on its merits.

In the final order, the court allowed the Criminal Writ Petition, quashed the impugned order of 02.06.2022, and restored the Criminal Revision to the same stage. Both parties were directed to appear before the Sessions Court on a specified date. The restoration was made subject to the payment of costs by the petitioner to the respondent, with non-payment leading to the dismissal of the revision application. The court made the rule absolute in the specified terms, emphasizing the need for compliance with the restoration conditions for the revision petition to proceed.

← Previous Next →