DANVANTI MUTUAL BENEFITS LIMITED Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is seeking quashing of order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate. Kaithal on 22-10-1999, while dismissing the complaint in default for want of prosecution and also the order passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal on 20-9-2004. while dismissing its application for restoration of the complaint.

(2.) The complaint in question was filed on 20-9-1999 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act'). It was fixed before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal for 22-10-1999 for recording of preliminary evidence. No one appeared for the complainant. Accordingly, the said Court dismissed the complaint in default for want of prosecution.

(3.) An application was then moved by the complainant for restoration of the complaint on the ground that the present complaint and two other similar complaints against Surjit Singh and Prem Parkash, filed by the complainant, were fixed before the same Court on 22-10-1999. The complainant was present in the Court. However, its presence was not noted in the present complaint though it was noted in the other two complaints, which were then adjourned to 22-12-1999. Even on the subsequent dates, the complainant has been appearing in all the three complaints. Ultimately, on 6-6-2000, the complainant was informed by the Court Reader that the file in the present case was not available. The complainant was under an impression that all the three complaints were being taken up simultaneously on one date and thereafter being adjourned for the same date. The complainant was, accordingly, told that the present complaint stood adjourned. On 14-9-2000. he moved an application to trace-out the file when he learnt that the present complaint had been dismissed in default for want of prosecution on 22-10-1999. Accordingly, he prayed for restoration of the complaint and its decision on merits, but the same was dismissed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal on 20-9-2004.