2018 (9) TMI 838

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Brief facts of the case are that, on 01.11.2017, the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short N.I. Act) for dishonour of cheque amounting to Rs. 2,50,000/-. 3. The case was initially listed on 22.11.2017 for office report and on the said date notice for presence of the attorney of the complainant was issued for 15.01.2018. On 15.01.2018, the attorney of the petitioner could not appear and consequentially the matter was adjourned to 17.02.2018 when again notice was issued to the attorney of the complainant to appear before the Court on 23.04.2018, but once again he could not appear and accordingly the complaint was ordered to be dismissed for want of prosecution. 4. It is conten....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n, evidently the petitioner was never issued notice in this case and the notice of appearance was only issued to General Power of Attorney. 7. That apart, the learned Magistrate should not have adopted a hyper technical and pedantic approach by ordering the dismissal of the complaint for default. 8. It has to be borne in mind that normally no party would desist or stop from pursuing a complaint involving dishonour of cheque till proved otherwise. That apart, it is always in the interest that the cases should be adjudicated on merits. In my opinion, the learned trial Magistrate has adopted a very strict and unjust attitude resulting in failure of justice. 9. There is yet another reason why the order impugned herein cannot withstand ....