Criminal Misc. No.M-7453 of 2009 O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-7453 of 2009 O&M) Date of decision: 29.5.2009 M/s Raja Finance Company ......Petitioner Versus Bhupinder Singh .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Malhotra , Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Jagjit Singh, Advocate, for the respondent. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short) for quashing of the impugned order dated 14.8.2008 (Annexure P-1) and order dated 9.1.2009 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner/complainant has filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short- “ the Act”) against the respondent on the allegation that a cheque dated Criminal Misc. No.M-7453 of 2009 O&M) 2 15.5.2007 issued by the respondent in favour of the petitioner for Rs.45,000/- had bounced when it was presented for encashment. Despite legal notice dated 23.5.2007 served by the petitioner, respondent had failed to make the payment. The petitioner/ complainant led his preliminary evidence and the trial Court vide order dated 14.6.2007 summoned the respondent to face the trial under Section 138 of the Act. On 14.8.2008, the following order was passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jalandhar, while dismissing the complaint of the petitioner:- “In the instant case speed post/CA not filed. It means that complainant is not interested in pursuing this complaint. Moreover, process could not be issued for non filing speed post/CA. Hence, by revoking Section 204 (4) of the Cr.P.C. the present complaint is dismissed in default. File be consigned to the record room.” Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Sessions Judge, Jalandhar and the same was dismissed vide impugned order dated 9.1.2009 (Annexure P-2). After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves to be allowed. The petitioner/ complainant had been making efforts to effect service of summons on the respondent. It appears that on 19.4.2008, accused was ordered to be summoned through speed post on filing of correct address for 14.8.2008. Criminal Misc. No.M-7453 of 2009 O&M) 3 As per Section 204 (4) Cr.P.C. when any process fee or other fees payable has not been paid within a reasonable time, the Magistrate may dismiss the complaint. There is no doubt that the Magistrate has power to dismiss the complaint on account of non deposit of requisite fee. However, the ends of justice require that a dispute is decided on merits. The respondent had issued a cheque for Rs.45,000/- in favour of the petitioner but the same bounced. The address of the accused given in the complaint is as under:- “Bhupinder Singh son of Shri Jagir Singh, resident of House No.114, Village Bhatnura Kalan, Tehsil and District Kapurthala.” Service was sought to be effected on the respondent on the said address. However, the petitioner was asked to furnish correct address of the respondent. It is surprising that on the same very address service was effected on the respondent in this petition. There is every possibility that the respondent might have played smart and succeeded in evading service of summons and the same led the trial Court to issue service through speed post and on furnishing of correct address. Apparently, the address given by the petitioner in the complaint was correct address and since the petitioner had already given the correct address of the respondent in the complaint, due to bona fide belief, he might not have thought it Criminal Misc. No.M-7453 of 2009 O&M) 4 necessary to furnish the correct address. In the facts and circumstances of the case, since the service could not be effected on the respondent through ordinary process, the trial Court could have taken recourse to coercive methods. The petitioner did not stand to benefit by not doing the needful. Apparently, due to inadvertence, the needful could not be done by the petitioner in time. It is a settled proposition of law that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. Judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because of its capability of removing injustice and is expected to do so. In these circumstances, the ends of justice require that the complaint filed by the petitioner is decided on merits. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the inherent jurisdiction of this Court is liable to be exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice and to secure the ends of justice. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. The case is remanded back to the trial Court for disposal in accordance with law. (SABINA) JUDGE May 29, 2009 anita