TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 543X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under challenge in the set of misc. petitions filed on behalf of the accused is the order dated 26.4.2016 by which, the court directed summoning of the accused persons through warrant of arrest because they failed to appear in the court despite assurance given on their behalf. Though, primafacie, this Court finds no illegality in the said order but in order to secure the ends of justice, the accused persons deserve to be given one opportunity to appear before the trial Court and furnish bail bonds upon which, they shall be released on bail. Misc. petitions filed on behalf of the complainants are allowed; the trial Court is directed to proceed further with the complaints submitted by the respective complainants and to try the accused as per law. The misc. petitions filed on behalf of the accused are dismissed as being devoid of merit while giving them liberty to appear before the trial Court within a period of 30 days from today and furnish bail bonds upon which they shall be released on bail. Failure to do so, would entitle the court below to secure their attendance by adopting coercive methods. The trial Court is further directed to expedite the trials and to try and com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respective complaints in light of the pronouncement made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra Anr. reported in 2014 Cr.L.R. (SC) 842, claiming that the court at Phalodi lacked territorial jurisdiction and the complaints should be returned to the complainants. The learned ACJM, Phalodi passed separate orders dated 30.1.2015 in each of the complaints and directed that the complaints in original be returned to the respective complainant for being prosecuted in the competent court. The complainants thereupon preferred separate misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in this Court being aggrieved of the order dated 30.1.2015 whereby, their complaints were directed to be returned to them. These misc. petitions were tagged together in a bunch and were listed before this Court on 15.12.2015 after service upon the accused party. On that day, learned counsel for the petitioners complainants sought liberty to withdraw the misc. petitions so that the complainants could move applications in the concerned court for revival of the complaints in light of the amendment introduced in the N.I. Act. The counsel representing the accused ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns Nos.2169/2016, 2174/2016, 2175/2016, 2176/2016, 2177/2016, 2178/2016, 2179/2016, 2180/2016, 2181/2016, 2182/2016, 2183/2016, 2184/2016, 2185/2016, 2186/2016, 2187/2016. The complainants have thereafter moved another set of misc. petitions Nos.3403/2016, 3404/2016, 3405/2016, 3406/2016, 3407/2016, 3408/2016, 3409/2016, 3410/2016, 3411/2016, 3412/2016, 3413/2016, 3414/2016, 3415/2016, 3416/2016 and 3425/2016 praying for clarification in the order dated 15.12.2015 passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation. Sarva Shri B.R. Gohel and Hemant Parmer learned counsel representing the accused vehemently urged that the court below was totally unjustified in issuing warrant of arrest against the accused persons. They urged that the order taking cognizance against the accused was passed with utter non-application of mind to the facts of the case. It is a non-speaking order and thus, should be quashed and set aside. They further urged that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revive the original complaints and the respective complainants, if they so desired should have filed fresh complaints with applications for condonation of delay and that the trial court could have proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Thereupon, the trial Court took the complaints back on its record and directed their re-registration by order dated 22.12.2015, which has not been challenged till date and thus, has attained finality. It was further contended by Shri Bohra that the accused persons put in appearance in the restored proceedings through their counsel and initially sought exemption from personal appearance. As they failed to put in appearance despite the liberty granted to them, the trial court was perfectly justified in issuing warrant of arrest against the accused persons. He thus, urged that the misc. petitions preferred on behalf of the complainants should be accepted whereas, the ones filed on behalf of the accused be rejected. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. The controversy at hand has arisen because of the transient phase brought around in the proceedings under the N.I. Act by the judgment in the case of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod s case (supra) in which, the Hon'ble Supreme Court went on to lay down certain principles governing the concept of territorial jur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The said amendment bears an express savings clause in subsection 5, which provides that anything done or any action taken under the principal Act shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of the principal Act as amended by the Act of 2015. As a direct corollary thereto, pursuant to the above amendment, a complaint which was earlier considered as being without territorial jurisdiction by virtue of Darshrath Rupsingh Rathod s Judgment (supra), would have to be considered as being within jurisdiction in view of the amended Section 142(2) (5). Consequently, the complainants herein would be well justified in claiming that they were entitled to request the trial court to take their complaints back on record and to proceed against the accused as if the complaints had never been returned. In this background, the argument advanced by Shri Manoj Bohra that no illegality was committed by the court below while accepting the resubmitted complaints and reregistering the same on the original number, is palpable. On the contrary, the contention putforth by Sarva Shri Gohel and Parmar that the order taking cognizance is bad in the eye of law and that the compla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
