High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rajan Sharma vs Shri Kaushal Sharma And Another on 3 March, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajan Sharma vs Shri Kaushal Sharma And Another on 3 March, 2009
Crl.Rev.No.364 of 2001                                        [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB                       AND HARYANA AT
               CHANDIGARH.



                                      Criminal Revision No.364 of 2001

                                      Date of Decision: 3 - 3 - 2009



Rajan Sharma                                            .....Petitioner

                                v.

Shri Kaushal Sharma and another                         .....Respondents



CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

                                ***

Present:     None for the parties.

                                ***

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)

The present revision petition was filed against the order passed

by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana whereby complaint preferred

by Rajan Sharma against Kaushal Sharma, proprietor, M/s Myelin

Laboratories, 9 Golden Plaza Market, Queen’s Road, Amritsar was

dismissed in default on 31.8.2000. The concerned Magistrate in his order

has recorded that case called several times since morning. None has come

present on behalf of the complainant. At 3.30 P.M. complaint was

dismissed in default. However, exemption for personal appearance was

granted to the accused.

In the present case, accused had been summoned to stand trial.

Dismissal of complaint under Section 256 Cr.P.C. in summons case amount

to acquittal. Therefore, the remedy available with the complainant-

Crl.Rev.No.364 of 2001 [2]

petitioner was to file an application for leave to appeal as envisaged under

Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.. The present revision petition is not maintainable.

In the present case, complaint was filed as cheque amounting to Rs.37,475/-

dated 7.8.1998 had bounced. The case under the Negotiable Instruments

Act fall under summons case as defined under Section 2(w) and (x) Cr.P.C..

This Court cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner as appropriate

remedy available to the petitioner was to file application for leave to appeal.

Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed being not maintainable.

( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA )
March 3, 2009. JUDGE

RC