IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 396 of 2010 M/s Jugal Kishor through Proprietor Rajendra Kumar Sharma, S/o Late Sri Ravi Prakash Sharma, R/o Main Bazar Rishikesh, District Dehradun. ….…..Petitioner Versus Shiv Pratap Singh, S/o Dr. Jitendra Singh, R/o 12 Chandreshwar Nagar, Rishikesh, District Dehradun. ……Respondent Mrs. Prabha Nathani, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocate, present for the respondent. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has sought quashing of order dated 17.08.2009 and 30.03.2010, passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, in criminal complaint case No. 2015 of 2009, Shiv Pratap Vs. M/s Jugal Kishor. 3) Brief facts of the case are that respondent Shiv Pratap Singh filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner M/s Jugal Kishor through its proprietor Rajendra Kumar Sharma, relating to offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, before the trial court, which was initially numbered as Criminal Complaint Case No. 488 of 2008. In said case, 29.06.2009, was the date fixed for the evidence. On said date, on the application of the complainant, the case was adjourned to 7th of August, 2009. However, by mistake, while preparing the order sheet, on the basis of order passed by the Magistrate on the application, the Reader 2 endorsed the next date as 04.08.2009 (instead of 07.08.2009). Due to this mistake the criminal complaint case was taken up on 04.08.2009, and dismissed for non prosecution, as none of the parties could appear on that date. In the circumstances, the Magistrate, allowed the restoration application moved by the respondent (complainant), and revived the proceedings. 4) On behalf of the petitioner, it is pleaded that the trial court has erred in law, reviving the proceedings and issuing bailable warrants against the petitioner. It is not only apparent from the photo copy of the order sheet filed as Annexure No.3 to the petition, but also clear from impugned order dated 17.08.2009, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, that the proceedings were restored as by mistake, the case was taken up on 04.08.2009, though, actually the next date fixed was 07.08.2009. 5) In the above circumstances, even if, there is an error in restoring the complaint, this Court is of the view that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should not be exercised, as it would not secure the ends of justice. What Magistrate has practically done is that he had rectified the mistake, which occurred on the part of the Court. 6) Therefore, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of, with the observation that the trial court after reviving the proceedings, should have given due notice to the petitioner before proceeding further. Accordingly the warrant of arrest if any issued against the petitioner, shall stand hereby recalled, and both the parties shall appear before the trial court on the next date fixed in the criminal complaint case. Interim 3 order dated 06.05.2010, stands hereby vacated (Stay Vacation Application No. 1501 of 2010, also stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 27.08.2011 JM