Criminal Application No. 1023 of 2005 · Bombay High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Quashed
Impugned order dated 25th November 2004 is quashed and
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Hence, I pass the following order : i) Impugned order dated 25th November 2004 is quashed and set aside. ii) Criminal Case S.C.C. No.1120 of 1998 is restored to the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangli. iii) The parties directed appear before…
Judgment
ORALORALORAL JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT:
Notice disposal issued February
2005. Leave granted. Appeal admitted. 22nd The learned Advocate Respondent Nos.1 2 waives service. The 138 Applicant complainant a complaint section Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881. By
25th November 2004 passed section 256 Code Criminal Procedure, 1973, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class dismissed the the complaint as the complainant and the Advocate for the complainant were absent.
Shri Patwardhan learned Counsel Applicant submitted impression complainant consistently absent. He states Roznama proceedings 2004, except He 25th October 2004, complainant/Applicant present. states 2002-2003 Applicant absent dates. He submitted Applicant - 2 - diligently prosecuting complaint therefore under section 256 of the said Code could not have been passed.
The learned Advocate second Respondents submitted learned Magistrate justified dismissing complaint. He submitted 25th October 2004 Applicant Advocate absent therefore complaint specifically orders 25th November 2004. He submitted that the learned Judge was justified in dismissing the complaint on 25th November 2004.
I perused Roznama proceeding. The Roznama proceedings indicates occasions bailable warrant required issued against accused persons. The complaint 2004 19th January 2004, 20th February 2004, 10th March 2004, 8th April 2004, 7th May 2004, 6th July 2004, 31st July 2004, 31st August 2004, 10th September 2004, 11th October 2004, 25th October 2004 25th November
2004. I except 10th September 2004 25th October 2004, Applicant present. On contrary, Respondent nos.1 2 appear Trial remained absent dates. In my view, learned Judge opportunity Applicant remain present prosecute complaint. Perusal Roznama 1999 Applicant diligently prosecuting case. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and - 3 - set aside.
Operative part
Hence, I pass the following order : i) Impugned order dated 25th November 2004 is quashed and set aside. ii) Criminal Case S.C.C. No.1120 of 1998 is restored to the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangli. iii) The parties directed appear before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangli on 4th December 2006 at
11.00 a.m. iv) All contentions of the parties on merits of the pending complaint are kept open. v) Writ of this Order to be sent forthwith. . Appeal is accordingly allowed. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Impugned order dated 25th November 2004 is quashed and
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 256.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 25 Nov 2004. The bench was A S OKA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.