1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 48323-M of 2007 Date of Decision: 19.5.2008 *** Atul Jain. .. Petitioner Vs. Harinder Kaur .. Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. R.L. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. Kiran Bala Jain, Advocate with Ms. Ritu Nain, Advocate for the respondent. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., a challenge has been laid to the order dated 19.1.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana by dint of which in the complaint filed by the petitioner-complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 his evidence has been closed by Court order, consequently resulting into acquittal of respondent for want of evidence as well as on account of non-prosecution. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that on 19.1.2005 the case was listed before the transferee court for the first time on account of abolition of the Court where in fact the trial of the complaint was going on and due to this the complainant could not appear before the transferee court, as such his absence was not intentional. This Court is of the opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed. The explanation given by the petitioner appears to be genuine. It is always in the interest of justice that the matter should be adjudicated on merits. Moreover, there is no gain in saying that no benefit could be drawn 2 by the complainant by not appearing in the Court intentionally before whom he had already got recorded his examination-in-chief by way of an affidavit and his cross-examination was yet to be recorded. The impugned order passed by the court below seems to be harsh in the circumstances. But since the petitioner is somewhat negligent in pursuing his case in a right perspective, he has to compensate the respondent by paying the cost. In view of this, the instant petition is allowed and the order dated 19.1.2005 passed by the learned Magistrate dismissing the complaint of the petitioner in default, is set aside subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as cost to the respondent. The matter is remitted back to the trial court with a direction to restore the complaint to its original number and then to further proceed with the case right from the stage, where it was dismissed and dispose it of expeditiously, on merits that too on payment of cost by the petitioner to the respondent-accused. The trial court shall be at liberty to ask for the fresh sureties on behalf of respondent-accused. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 19,2008 Jiten