<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2008 (1) TMI 988 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301003</link>
    <description>A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act dismissed in default for non-appearance of the complainant was restored under the High Court&#039;s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. The court noted that the accused had already been declared a proclaimed offender, was evading service, and had not been produced despite repeated process. The complainant&#039;s absence on the relevant date was treated as unintentional, and dismissal was considered to operate harshly against the complainant rather than advance justice. The dismissal order was set aside and the complaint restored to its original number.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Mar 2022 18:27:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=672214" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (1) TMI 988 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301003</link>
      <description>A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act dismissed in default for non-appearance of the complainant was restored under the High Court&#039;s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. The court noted that the accused had already been declared a proclaimed offender, was evading service, and had not been produced despite repeated process. The complainant&#039;s absence on the relevant date was treated as unintentional, and dismissal was considered to operate harshly against the complainant rather than advance justice. The dismissal order was set aside and the complaint restored to its original number.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301003</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>