Cheque bounce case -- Restoration of complaint -- Though Ld. trial Court has rightly dismissed the complaint on account of non-appearance of the complainant-appellant, however, considering the fact that the complainant-appellant was appearing in the case regularly and on the relevant date, he had to go out of station and the case was fixed for appearance of the accused – Held, the complainant-appellant deserves opportunity to pursue his complaint, which was otherwise not adjudicated on merits -- Proceedings u/s 138 of the Act are more or less civil in nature, even though the same may have criminal bearing -- Consequently, the complaint filed by the applicant u/s 138 of the Act is restored for its decision as per merit.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 22.08.2017

Cheque bounce case -- In no way, by the absence, the complainant/appellant is to be benefitted in this complaint case nor there is anything on the record to show that there was any mala fide intention on the part of the complainant/appellant for his absence from the proceedings – Absence of the complainant on one date in the complaint case is no ground to dismiss the complaint.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.02.2017

Cheque bounce case -- Single default in appearance -- Leave to appeal -- It is settled law that the rights of the parties should be decided on merit as far as possible -- Court should do substantial justice between the parties and should not go into the technicalities of the law -- Where technical consideration and merit or cause of substantial justice are pitted against each other, the cause of merit and substantial justice is to prevail – Order dismissing the complaint in default is set aside.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.02.2017

Cheque bounce case -- Restoration of complaint -- In no way, by the absence, the complainant/appellant is to be benefitted in this complaint case nor there is anything on the record to show that there was any mala fide intention on the part of the complainant/appellant for his absence from the proceedings – Impugned order passed by the Ld. JMIC, has caused miscarriage of justice -- If this order is not set aside, the complainant/appellant will suffer irreparable loss -- Rights of the parties should be decided on merit as far as possible -- Court should do substantial justice between the parties and should not go into the technicalities of the law -- Where technical consideration and merit or cause of substantial justice are pitted against each other, the cause of merit and substantial justice is to prevail -- Complaint is restored at the stage from where it was dismissed by the trial Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.03.2016

Cheque bounce case -- Case transfer to another court -- When the case has been transferred to another Court, it was the obligation of the Court to have ensured that the complainant has been given due notice of the transfer of his case – Ld. Court below has not only acted in a haste but has also denied due justice to the appellant -- Impugned order, set aside directing the Court below to restore the complaint and to proceed ahead into the matter as per law.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.12.2015

Cheque bounce case -- Complainant had been appearing spanning over a period of almost three years and the Court having recorded the preliminary evidence passed summoning orders against the accused finding prima facie allegations to summon him for the commission of this offence, and who apparently had been evading his appearance for almost a period of two years -- Held, there was no necessity for the presence of the complainant on the date when the impugned order for dismissing in default was passed as it was the duty of the Court to have procured the presence of the accused in fulfillment of its summoning orders – It was not appropriate and correct exercise of the powers envisaged under Section 256 Cr.P.C. – Complaint restored.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.12.2015

Cheque bounce case -- When the case was dismissed, it was fixed for presence of accused -- Presence of the complainant was not necessary -- A very hyper-technical and pedantic approach had been adopted by the Court below by dismissing the complaint only for a single default -- Complainant was diligently pursuing his remedies -- He has given an explanation -- It is always in the interest of justice that the case should be adjudicated on merits -- Matter is remitted back to the trial court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.10.2015

Cheque bounce case -- Dismissal in default followed by restoration application unnecessarily delays the disposal of complaint on merits than simply adjourning the case for a date – Complaint was not listed for any particular purpose, rather it was fixed for presence of accused by way of notice and presence of appellant was not necessary on that date -- Merely on that account of non-appearance, the complaint should not have been dismissed in default -- Complaint is restored to its original number.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.05.2015

Cheque bounce case -- Non-appearance of complainant – Plea of wrong noting of date appears to be genuine -- Bona fide of the complainant is established from the fact that its representative had been appearing on each and every date -- Complaint is restored to its original number.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.05.2015

Cheque bounce case -- Restoration of complaint -- Case called several times but none has appeared and on that account, the complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution -- Cheque amount is stated to be Rs.10 lacs -- Nobody should be condemned unheard – Impugned order stands set-aside -- Complaint stands restored to its original number -- Trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of this order.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.01.2015

Cheque bounce case -- Leave to Appeal -- Dismissal of the complaint for want of prosecution has resulted in acquittal of the accused and, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to challenge the order by seeking leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.01.2015

Cheque bounce case -- Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside order of dismissal or say it differently, restoration of the complaint dismissed in default – Absence of complainant from the proceedings was not willful or intentional but due to justifiable reason and proceedings were pending for securing presence of the accused – Ld. trial Magistrate neither examined nor recorded any reasons if personal appearance of the petitioner could not be dispensed with on that day – Complaint filed by the petitioner is ordered to be restored.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.01.2015