Crl. M. No. M- 21817 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 21817 of 2010 Date of decision.30.07.2010 Punjab Agro Industrial Corporation through its District Manager, Jalandhar ....... Petitioner Versus Ms. Jai Jagdambay Trading Company, Grain Market Phillaur through its Proprietor Dinesh Kumar. ........ Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present:- Mr. Tarun Walia, Advocate for the petitioner. - Sham Sunder, J. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for setting aside the order dated 17.09.2009, (Annexure P-7), passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, whereby the revision petition against the order dated 15.9.2008 (Annexure P-4), passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, was dismissed, has been filed by the petitioner. Crl. M. No. M- 21817 of 2010 -2- 2. A criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, was filed by the complainant (now petitioner). After recording preliminary evidence, the respondent was summoned as an accused. The summons were sent a number of times, but the same were received back with the report of incorrect address. His correct address was ordered to be furnished, but the complainant failed to do so. It came up with the plea that no other address of the accused- respondent was available. Accordingly, the accused- respondent was ordered to be summoned through proclamation by publication in the daily newspaper subject to deposit of publication charges. The publication charges were not deposited despite the fact that a number of adjournments were granted for that purpose. On 15.09.2008 neither the complainant nor its Counsel appeared and, accordingly, the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, dismissed the complaint in default of appearance of the complainant. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision petition, which was dismissed, vide order dated 17.09.2008, by the Court of Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. 4. Still feeling dis-satisfied, the instant petition has been filed by the petitioner. Crl. M. No. M- 21817 of 2010 -3- 5. I have heard the Counsel for the revision- petitioner, and have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 6. The Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that no doubt the complaint was filed on 12.10.2002, yet the service of the accused-respondent, could not be procured, as he was evading the same. He has further submitted that the complainant or its Counsel were not aware of the order regarding deposit of publication charges, for publication of proclamation of the accused-respondent, under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the daily newspaper, and, as such the same could not be deposited. He has further submitted that the presence of the duly authorized representative of the complainant or its counsel on the date fixed was not necessary for the progress of the case. He has further submitted that, under these circumstances, it could not be said that there was fault, on the part of the complainant/petitioner. He has further submitted the orders impugned, being illegal, are liable to be set aside. 7. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the revision- petitioner, in my considered opinion, the petition is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. The Crl. M. No. M- 21817 of 2010 -4- complaint was filed on 12.10.2002. After the accused was summoned on the basis of the preliminary evidence recorded, a number of dates were given to the complainant to furnish his correct address, but it failed to do so. Ultimately, it came up with the plea that it was not in possession of any other address of the accused-respondent.Under these circumstances, the Court was left with no other alternative, than to order the publication of proclamation of the accused under Section 82 Cr.P.C., in the newspaper. For that purpose, the complainant was directed to deposit the publication charges. The first date granted for deposit of publication charges was 27.2.2006 and notice of proclamation was ordered to be published for 10.05.2006. The complainant, however, did not deposit the publication charges. Thereafter, a number of dates were granted to the complainant/petitioner, for depositing the publication charges, but it failed to do so. On 15.09.2008, neither the duly authorised representative of the complainant was present, nor its Counsel was present, nor the publication charges had been deposited. It means that for a period of two years, the complainant-petitioner just took the dates for deposit of publication charges, but failed to do so. Instead of complying with the orders of the Court, and putting in appearance, or causing the appearance of its Counsel, it Crl. M. No. M- 21817 of 2010 -5- preferred to remain absent on 15.9.2008. The presence of the authorised representative of the complainant or its Counsel, on the date fixed, was essential for further progress of the case. A litigant who takes the litigation, in a casual manner, and just wasted the time of the Court, for a period of about 7 years (from the date of filing the complaint), does not need the indulgence of the Court in any manner. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the presence of the complainant or its Counsel on the date fixed, was not necessary , is mis-conceived. Had any steps been not required to be taken by the complainant/petitioner towards the progress of the case on the date fixed i.e. 15.9.2008, it would have been said that the Court could exempt its presence. But since the steps were required to be taken for the progress of the case, on the date fixed, the absence of the duly authorised representative of the complainant or its Counsel, clearly showed that there was willful and deliberate default on the part of the complainant. Even the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner or its Counsel was not aware of the order of deposit of publication charges, is belied by the record. The Revisional Court was, thus, right in holding that no explanation, what to speak of plausible, was furnished for non-appearance of the authorised representative Crl. M. No. M- 21817 of 2010 -6- of the complainant or its counsel on the date fixed. Even an award has been passed, in favour of the complainant by the Arbitrator, and on the basis thereof, it can recover the amount 8. The orders impugned, do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, warranting the interference of this Court. The same are liable to be upheld. 9. For the reasons, recorded above, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., filed by the petitioner, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. Any observation, made, in this order, shall not be taken, as an expression of mind, on merits of the case. July 30, 2010 ( SHAM SUNDER ) dinesh/Gaurav.A. JUDGE