CRL.M.C./1964/2016 of GULSHAN KUMAR SACHDEVA Vs THE STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR

Court: Delhi High Court
Decision date: 2017-02-21
Case number: 1964/2016

Parties

Represented by: Mr. Yogesh Choudhary, Adv (PETITIONER)
THE STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR (RESPONDENT)

Cites (1)

CRL.L.P./602/2022 of MS SACHDEVA ENTERPRISES Vs THE STATE AND ANR (2025)

Full text

solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus

Show all Body

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ CRL.M.C. 1964/2016

GULSHAN KUMAR SACHDEVA

..... Petitioner

Represented by: Mr. Yogesh Choudhary, Adv.

versus

THE STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR

..... Respondent

Represented by: Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP. Mr. M.M. Singh, Ms. Pooja Kumari, Advs. for R-2.

CORAM:HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

O R R21.02.2017

Learned counsel for the respondent enters appearance. The petitioner challenges the order dated 3[rd] March, 2016 whereby the complaint of the petitioner being complaint case No. 5092/15 titled as ‘Gulshan Kumar Sachdeva Vs. M/s. P.V. Enterprises’ was dismissed for want of prosecution for the reason that none appeared for the complainant on that date on 3[rd]March, 2016 despite repeated calls.

The learned Trial Court vide the impugned order noted that even on the last date none appeared for the petitioner/complainant. The explanation rendered by learned counsel for the petitioner is that on 10[th] December, 2015 when the matter came up and the petitioner appeared with the counsel before CRL.M.C. 1964/2016 page 1 of 2

the Trial Court, the matter was fixed for 31[st] March, 2016, however when the counsel and the petitioner appeared on 31[st] March, 2016 it was revealed that on 3[rd] March, 2016 the complaint was dismissed.

Observation of the learned Trial Court in the impugned order dated 3[rd]March, 2016 that none appeared for the complainant even on the last date is incorrect for the reason on 10[th] December, 2015 the order sheet of the learned Trial Court notes the presence of petitioner/ complainant with counsel and the accused in person. Consequently, the impugned order dismissing the complaint for non-prosecution is set aside subject to cost of ₹5,000/- to be paid to the respondent on the next date of hearing before the Trial Court. The complaint case No.5092/15 is restored to its original position and the same be listed before the learned Trial Court on 20[th] March, 2017 when the parties will appear before the Court.

Petition is disposed of.

FEBRUARY 21, 2017 ‘ga’

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

CRL.M.C. 1964/2016