Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Mukta Gupta, J. allowed a petition filed against the order of the trial Judge whereby the petitioner’s complaint filed for the commission of offence under Section 138 (dishonour of cheque) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was dismissed for non-prosecution.

The petitioner had advanced a loan to the respondent who defaulted in repaying the same. The cheque given by the respondent for the discharge of the said liability was also dishonoured. After fulfilling the codal formalities, the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138.

The petitioner along with his counsel was present when the Metropolitan Magistrate issued summons against the respondent. Thereafter, on the next date, counsel for the petitioner was present but Metropolitan Magistrate was not available on account of training, Thereafter, counsel for the petitioner was present and bailable warrants were issued against the respondent. When notice was required to be framed, the case was transferred to another Metropolitan Magistrate. On the subsequent date, none appeared before the Metropolitan Magistrate as the advocates were on strike. On the date of the impugned order, the complaint was dismissed on account of non-appearance on behalf of the petitioner.

The High Court was of the view that the petition ought to be allowed. It was considered that neither the complainant nor his counsel could appear due to strike as mentioned above and that the clerk of the counsel wrongly noted the next date, and therefore the complainant or his counsel could not again appear on the date of the impugned order. In such circumstances of the case, the Court thought it fit to restore petitioner’s complaint on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate. The petition was accordingly allowed. [Rajeev Kumar v. Gagan Makhija, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9708, decided on 07-08-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Jaswant Singh, J., dealt with a writ petition in nature of mandamus.

Petitioner was appointed on the basis of daily wage as Sewadar by Shiromani Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee. He was suspended due to a complaint filed against him. The contention of petitioner was that he was terminated from his services by an oral communication and that he was not provided any copy of termination order. It was also alleged by the petitioner that his natural right to be heard was infringed by respondent. Hence, this writ in nature of mandamus was filed with a prayer that the respondents should be directed to reinstate petitioner.

High Court viewed that petitioner had appeared only once before the Court and had earlier done the same on at least six occasions. This shows that the petitioner was not willing to continue this petition. Therefore, this petition was dismissed for non-prosecution by petitioner. [Jagjeet Singh v. Shiromani Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee, 2018 SCC OnLine P&H 1646, decided on 30-10-2018]