Purshottam Sahu v. Chhabila Bai Sahu

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 2462 of 2018 Purshottam Sahu, S/o Shri Tijauram Sahu, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Bathena Ward, Dhamtari, District-Dhamtari (C.G.) ---- Petitioner

Versus

Chhabila Bai Sahu, W/o Shri Naresh Kumar Sahu, R/o Village Koremuda, School Para, Tahsil Nagri, District-Dhamtari (C.G.) ---- Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :

Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate.

For Respondent :

None.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma Order On Board 01/12/2018 1.

Heard on application filed under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of leave to appeal. 2.

On due consideration, leave is granted.

3.

This petition is preferred under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against order dated 04.10.2018 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 908/2018, whereby the said court dismissed the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 for default in payment of process fee.

4.

It appears from the order-sheet of the said court that earlier process fee was paid for appearance of respondent, but the same was unserved and the trial court directed to issue bailable warrant against the respondent. For hearing dated 04.10.2018 process fee was not paid that is why the trial court dismissed the complaint.

5.

In the matter of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. Keshvanand reported in (1998) 1 SCC 687, Hon'ble the Apex Court held as under:- "18. Reading the Section in its entirety would reveal that two constraints are imposed on the court for exercising the power under the Section. First is, if the court thinks that in a situation it is proper to adjourn the hearing then the Magistrate shall not acquit the accused. Second is, when the Magistrate considers that personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary on that day the Magistrate has the power to dispense with his attendance and proceed with the case.

When the Court notices that the complainant is absent on a particular day the court must consider whether personal attendance of the complainant is essential on that day for progress of the case and also whether the situation does not justify the case being adjourned to another date due to any other reason. If the situation does not justify the case being adjourned the Court is free to dismiss the complaint and acquit the accused. But if the presence of the complainant on that day was quite unnecessary then resorting to the step of axing down the complaint may not be a proper exercise of the power envisaged in the section. The discretion must, therefore be exercised judicially and fairly without impairing the cause of administration of criminal justice." 6.

Again, in the matter of Mohd. Azeem Vs. A. Venkatesh & another reported in (2002) 7 SCC 726, Hon'ble the Apex Court held that in a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the single default with respect to the petitioner/ complainant, the dismissal of the complaint case is not proper, legal and justified.

7.

In view of this Court, all the cases should decide on merit and not send the case to record room without deciding the issues between the parties and without providing opportunity to adduce evidence. Dismissal of complaint was not the only option before the trial court. The trial court should have adjourned the case for

some other dates as provided under Section 256 (1) of Cr.P.C. but that is not done in the present case, therefore, order passed by the trial court is not sustainable.

8.

Accordingly, order passed by the trial court is set aside allowing the petition. The trial court is directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law after providing opportunity to the complainant/ petitioner for issuance of summon to respondent and after service of summon, the trial court shall proceed with the case and decide the issue between the parties on merit. 9.

The petitioner shall appear before the trial court on 22nd January, 2019 and the trial court shall proceed further. Sd/- (Ram Prasanna Sharma) Judge Arun