Singteteii^i IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P. N0. ^< /2010 PETITIQNLU/S 482 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE Petitioner : Applicant Versus Respondents Non-Applicants 1. .^°^?3t ^y ..•^" '.''.. .f<9'- -6" "d^?.-" :.-»r- y^^ PETITION U/S Dharmendra Desai, S/o Ratilal Desai, Age Not Known, Proprietor - Kishore Machinery Stores, Station Road Raipur, Tahsil 85 Distt. Raipur-fC.G.) Manish Sharma, S/o Manmohan Sharma, Proprietor-Jyanti Enterprises, Near Bus Stand, Congress Bhawan, Tahsil - Kondagaon, Distt. Bastar- (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through-Collector, Raipur-(C.G.) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. ..'.VA p J\^ 2. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SBj_HON'BLE MR. JUSTICB PRITINKERDrarAKBR CR.Ifl.P.ltO. 6S/2010 Dhamrendra Desai vei^us Mauish Sharma & Anofher Shri S.Iintiyaz AM, counsel for the applicaat. None for the respondent No. 1 fhough senred. Shri Paakaj Shrivastava, P.L. for fhe State/resp. No.2. PETITIOK U/S 482 OP THB CR.P.C. (X9.04.2010) The present petitton filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 10.11.2009 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raipur m Cr.Rev. N0. 29/09 afBrming the order dated 7.1.09 oassed bv the leamed Judicial Magistrate First Class in M.J.C. No. 3/09 whereby the complamt case as filed by the petitioner was disraissed ia default by fhe Court below. 2. Brief facts of the case are fhat on 22.1.2004, tfae petitioner/coinplamant filed a coiaplaint case against the respondent N0.1 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruinents Act. On 4.12.2004, fhe said complamt was registered and sumnions were issued to the resoondent No. 1 however on 10,11.2008 tfae complaiat case was dismissed as the petiti.oner/coinplaman.t aad his couasel could iiot appear before fhe Court. Thereafter, on 2.1.09 the petitioner filed an. appUcation for restoration of fhe coinplamt case however, the sanie was disiaissed by fhe leamed Magistrate on 7.1.09. This order was uiisuccessfuUy chaUenged by fhe petitioner before the revisional Court however, by fhe ioipugned order dated 10.11.09 the revision has also been disnussed. -——~ £:"'-:f/iff^-w^ 3. ContenUon of fhe counsel for fhe petitioner K fhat on 10.11.2008 fhe complaiaaat aud his counsel could not appear before the Court as fhe case was traiisferred fi'oin the earUer Court and fhis fact was not withia the knowledge of the complauiaat. He submits fhat his appUcation has been dismissed by the Court below on the teclmical grouitd as fhere was no provision for restoration of crimiual case. He has piaced tda stpong reliaace on fhe judgment of this Coiu-t ia the matter of KeumdStcw. Khandelwea Vs. SSaidsh Chouhan & another, 2002 CCaLJ 181 and submits fhat ftie case be restored to its original nuinber and the Magistrate be directed to decide ftie same on mierits. 4. In view of the aforesaid facts and ia view of the law laid down by fhis Coiut, the fact fhat the niatter was pendiag before the Court below ITOIU 4.12.2004 and the petitioner has failed to appear before ftie Court on 10.11.2008 as the case was traasferred to the ofher Court, it is a fit case to exercise fhe jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Acconlingly, the order dated 10.11.2Q08 whereby the petitioner's coinplamit was disinissed in. default is set aside and fhe case is restored to its origiaal number. The matter is remitted back to the trial Court. The record be sent back immediately. The trial Court shaU proceed with the inatter expeditiousty in accordance with law. In fhe result, the petition is atlowed. Prituiker Diwaker Judge