IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 3353 of 2018 ------ Anil Chanda, S/o Saheb Chanda, R/o Block No.1, Shashtri Nagar, H.No. 584, PO and PS-Kadma, Town-Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum ... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2. Ravindra Yadav @ Pappu, S/o Sri Ratan Yadav, R/o H.No.22, Rani Kudar, Gurudwara Basti, PO and PS- Bistupur, Town- Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum .... .... ....Opposite Parties ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate; Mr. Mayank Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. V. S. Sahay, APP ------ Order No.10/Dated: 13.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V.S. Sahay, the learned counsel for the State. 2. No one appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2. 3. The present petition has been filed under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order dated 29th May, 2018 passed in Cr. Revision No. 60 of 2018 by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, whereby and whereunder, the Revision preferred against the order dated 23.11.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in C/1 case no. 1162 of 2017 whereby after cognizance of the offence under section 138 N.I. Act the petitioner was directed to file process fee and requisites which was not complied with and, therefore, complaint petition was dismissed and Cr. Revision No. 60 of 2018 against the above order has also been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur vide order dated 29.5.2018. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that requisites were filed within stipulated time of fifteen days meanwhile, the record was transferred to another court and the requisites filed by the petitioner could not be tagged with the original record due to inadvertence on the part of the office clerk of the said court. Thereafter again opportunity was given to the -2- petitioner for filing of requisites but the same could not be complied with due to non-communication of the said order by the conducting lawyer of the petitioner. Therefore, there is no willful default on the part of the petitioner and he has a genuine cause and remedy to be availed by filing complaint case. The Revisional Court has also not applied his judicial mind towards the circumstances preventing the petitioner from complying the order passed by the concerned trial court and dismissed the revision without any valid and sound reason. In the ends of justice, one opportunity may be granted to the petitioner quashing the impugned order and this petition may be allowed. 5. The learned counsel for the State has defended the impugned orders and submitted that there is no illegality and infirmity in the orders passed by the learned courts below. 6. I have gone through the impugned orders passed by the learned trial courts, it appears that there was single default on the part of the petitioner for not complying the order of filing requisites for appearance of the opposite party of this case and the grounds showing inability of the petitioner in compliance of the said order appears reasonable and plausible, therefore, this petition is allowed. 7. The Complaint Case No. 1162 of 2017 is restored to its original file. 8. The petitioner is directed to take appropriate steps in the case within one month from the date of this order. 9. Let this order be communicated to the learned courts concerned through fax. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) KNR/