IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 56 of 2010 Smt. Meena Singh W/o Raj Kumar Singh R/o Central Silk Department Board Village Laxmipur, P.S. Sahaspur District Dehradun. …………..…Petitioner. Versus Raj Kumar S/o Sri Joginder Singh R/o Central Silk Department Board Village Laxmipur P.S. Sahaspur, District Dehradun. ……….Respondent. Shri S.K. Mandal, Advocate, present for the revisionist. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This revision, is directed against the order dated 08.01.2010, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun, whereby the criminal complaint case No. 1646 of 2009, Smt. Meena Singh Vs. Raj Kumar, is dismissed for non prosecution. 2. Heard. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that originally a criminal complaint (No. 1552 of 2004) was filed before Judicial Magistrate Ist, Dehradun, on 24.02.2004, relating to offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against accused/respondent 2 Raj Kumar. It is pleaded that said case was later transferred to the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ist, Dehradun, and renumbered as 2078 of 2008. Thereafter, the criminal complaint was transferred to the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate III, and renumbered as 2078 of 2008. Till that stage, complainant continued to prosecute the case. In the year 2009, the court of Judicial Magistrate at Vikas Nagar, was created and vide order dated 05.09.2009, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, it was directed that the criminal complaint case be transferred to the court of Judicial Magistrate, Vikas Nagar. On 03.10.2009, Judicial Magistrate, Vikas Nagar, received the criminal complaint case, where it was renumbered as criminal complaint case No. 1646 of 2009. Contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist/complainant had no knowledge of transfer of case to Judicial Magistrate, Vikas Nagar, and as such, he could not appear before Judicial Magistrate, Vikas Nagar. Copy of order- sheet, filed with the revision, corroborates this fact that the complainant had no knowledge of transfer of the case. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 08.01.2010, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Vikas Nagar, whereby the criminal complaint is dismissed for non prosecution, is erroneous in law, as the order could have been passed only after notice to the complainant or his counsel regarding transfer of the case from Dehradun to the court at Vikas Nagar. It 3 is pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that P.W. 1/complainant Meena Singh, has already been examined in the case before the trial court at Dehradun. 4. In the above circumstances, this revision is summarily disposed of with the following direction:- The impugned order dated 08.01.2010, dismissing the criminal complaint in default of the complainant, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Vikas Nagar, is set aside. The complainant is directed to appear before the Judicial Magistrate, Vikas Nagar, on 26.04.2010. The trial court (Judicial Magistrate, Vikas Nagar) shall proceed further with the criminal complaint case after giving notice to the respondent- accused or his counsel. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt:30.03.2010 Sweta 4