CHANDAN AGARWAL Vs. RAJEEV RANJAN ASTHANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been preferred praying for leave to prefer an appeal against judgment and order dated 9th August, 2004, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jamshedpur in C1-1093 of 1999. Counsel appearing for the opposite parties has raised objection to the effect that because of amendment in the Criminal Procedure Code, especially looking to the Proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., now petitioner has efficacious alternative remedy by way of statutory appeal before the Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur and therefore, prayer for leave to file an appeal may not be entertained.

(2.) Counsel for the applicant has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Commission for Women Vs. State of Delhi And Another, 2010 12 SCC 599 Para 8 and submitted that the order dated 9th August, 2004 was passed before the proviso was inserted to Section 372 of Cr.P.C. (with effect from 31-12-2009) and therefore, this new amendment, i.e. Proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. will not be applied in the facts of the present case.

(3.) Having heard both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it appears that the applicant has filed a complaint case, being C-1 No. 1093 of 1999 under Section 198 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and under section 420 of the I.P.C. against Opposite Party No. 1. Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, vide order dated 9th August, 2004 had dismissed the complaint case because of several reasons including that it is premature in nature. Against this judgment present application has been preferred under Sub Section 4 of the Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. seeking leave to prefer an appeal.