m 11-1 200 WWW ammm mm (W) WWW WW‘IWW %afi=cmsnéa1 k ‘HATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SHRI DHIRENDRA HIGH COURT OF C SINGLE BENCH CR M.P PETITIONER ERSUS RESPONDENTS l . Pressnt : RDER ) 25.7.2007) A ,_. I Lu H N’BLE MI HRA, J 0 . 128 of 2006 Rajiv Khatri S/o Shri C.M. Khatri Aged about 39 years, R/o 87, Jal Vihar Colony, P.S. Civil Lines, Raipur Distt. Raipur (C.G.) N.K. Jain, Proprietor Jatan Grih Udyog, Fafadih, Raipur (C.G.) Present Address:— N.K. Jain C/ o Shanti Vijay Kirana Stores, Post Mummgaon, Distt. Garhchiroli (Maharashtra) State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Raipur (C.G.) Shri S.S. Rajput, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajendra Tripathi, G.A. for respondent No. 1. . XI-HC—78 @ WW,W,W WW (W) mmm 32H W WWW WW%WW $sfi‘aum This revision is dirJcted against the order dated 27th June 2006 passsd in Crim‘nal Revision No. 95/2006, whereby the revision preferred by petitioner against the order dated 9.1.2006 by which the criminal complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 1 8 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, was dismissed under Sec ‘on 256 of Cr.P.C., has also been dismissed. Learned counsel f the petitioner submits that the petitioner was prosecuti the criminal complaint diligently from the year 1998 and only because of his single non— appearance on 9.1.2006, t e complaint has been dismissed by the learned trial Court tho gh as per Section 256 of the Cr.P.C. discretion has been vested with the trial Court to adjourn the" _ matter for some other date. He further submits that because of dismissal of the criminal c mplaint, the petitioner has become remediless as he has no ‘o her remedy to recover the amount, which he had lended t0 re pondent No.1, in lieu of which the respondent No.1 had give him a cheque of Rs.1,25,000/— as the limitation prescribed for recovery of the amount, has already been elapsed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the res ondent No.1 is facing trial since the 'year 1998 and on the ea lier occasions also the matter’vga’sg ;n mm in 200 i t e o n . @ Xl-HC—,78 Wm 1:1 200 Wm (W) WmW ‘ mmwam WWW WW %afmaq1%¥1 ammm fixed for recording of complainant’s evidence on 17.9.2004 and 1.2.2005 and on those dates also the matter was adjourned because of non—production of the witnesses by the present petitioner. There is novillegality or infirmity in the impugned order as the learned Magstrate has exercised her discretion a f with due application of rrind, which has subsequently been confirmed in the revision by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the impugned order. Learned Additional Sessions Judge in paragraph 11 of the impugned order has taken into account the fact that the complainant was himself negligent in prosecuting ther complaint as he did not appear on two earlier occasions when the matter was fixed for recording of complainant’s evidence. It has been further observed that on the previous dates also the complainant or his couns‘el did not appear, however, taking into consideration that tke matter was received by the said Court on transfer, it was not dismissed and it was postponed for the other date. On 9.1.2006 neither the complainant nor his counsel appeared before the trial Court and in these circumstances, the complaint was dismissed. After careful perusal of the impugned brder, this Court does notJf'/mf/arg/ M; XI—HC_78 W 3am, mg, illegality or infirmity in the below, which warrants intl Cr.P.C. ~ r In the result, the pe “liable to be dismissed at accordingly dismissed. & l yM orders passed by both the Courts :rference under Section 482 of the tition being devoid of substance is the admission stage itself and is Sdl- Dhirendra Mishra f ' Judge f I W W ‘..“Hi 200 mm (W) WWW ammm mmm WW§$QWW %aifaq3n%¥r