Criminal Misc. No. M-3961 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-3961 of 2008 Date of decision: August 10, 2009 M/s V.I.P. Industries Ltd. -Petitioner Versus M/s Paul Furniture Palace -Respondent Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta Present: Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Satinder Khanna, Advocate, for the respondent. Rajan Gupta, J.(Oral) This is a petition wherein the petitioner has sought restoration of the complaint which was dismissed by the trial Court on 12.9.2007. The complaint was lodged by the petitioner under Sections 418,420 read with Section 422 IPC. According to averments made in the petition, after preliminary evidence was led, the respondent-accused was summoned by the trial court to face trial. The matter was fixed before the trial court for framing of charge on 13.8.2007. However, the authorised signatory of the petitioner- company namely Arvind Acharya resigned on 4.8.2007. He had resigned without any intimation to the petitioner-company, as a result of which the case was adjourned to 12.9.2007. However, on the said date the trial court dismissed the complaint for want of prosecution. The new authorised signatory namely Manoj Gupta joined the company on 6-10-2007. The petitioner has now sought restoration of the complaint. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the complaint having Criminal Misc. No. M-3961 of 2008 2 been dismissed for want of prosecution, the same cannot be restored by the trial court in view of the law laid down in Adalat Parsad Vs. Rooplal Jindal, 2004(4) RCR (Crl.) 1. The petitioner has therefore been left with no other remedy except to approach this Court through the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Counsel has further submitted that non- appearance before the trial Court was not deliberate but due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner company. Counsel for the respondent has, however, vehemently opposed the prayer for restoration of complaint. He has submitted that general power of attorney in favour of Manoj Gupta was stamped on 29.8.2007 and the resolution was passed by the Board authorising him on 26-7-2007. This power of attorney was got notarised on 6-10-2007. According to the counsel, petitioner has made an effort to mislead this Court by giving incorrect facts. This apart, counsel has submitted that the order under challenge is purported to have been passed in exercise of power under section 249 Cr.P.C. The same being a revisable order, the present petition invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court is misconceived. I have heard counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. It is evident that the complaint was dismissed by the trial court on 12.9-2007 due to non-appearance of representative of the petitioner on one date. There is nothing on record to show that the complainant had sought repeated adjournments or defaulted in appearance. It appears that the complaint was dismissed due to non appearance on a single date. The reason assigned by the petitioner for the same is that authorised signatory of the company was not available. However, without returning any finding on Criminal Misc. No. M-3961 of 2008 3 this plea of the petitioner, I am of the considered view that it would be harsh if the complainant is not allowed to pursue its complaint on merits. I do not find any force in the contention of counsel for the respondent that the order passed by the trial court being revisable, therefore, the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained. In this context, observation of the apex court in Adalat Parsad's case ( supra) is relevant, which reads thus: “15. It is true that if a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence, issues process without there being an allegation against the accused or any material implicating the accused or contravention of provision of Sections 200 & 202, the order of the Magistrate may be vitiated, but then the relief an aggrieved accused can obtain at that stage is not by invoking Section 203 of the Code because the Criminal Procedure Code does not contemplate a review of an order. Hence in the absence of any review power or inherent power with the subordinate criminal courts, the remedy lies in invoking Section 482 of the Code”. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct that the complaint be restored to its original number and position. The trial to proceed thereafter in accordance with law. However, in view of the fact that due to default on the part of the petitioner-company, the respondent has been put to a considerable expense and harassment, it would be appropriate to allow this petition subject to costs, which are assessed at Rs. 10,000/-. Parties are directed to remain present before the trial court on September 23, 2009 for further proceedings. [Rajan Gupta] Judge August 10, 2009. 'ask'