crapl767.24 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 48 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 767 OF 2024 Uddhav Badrinath Dandge VERSUS Gass Infratech and another ... Advocate for Appellant : Ms. Ashwini A. Lomte ….. CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. DATED : 13th JANUARY 2025 PER COURT :- 1. This appeal is preferred against an order dated 01.01.2024, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.10, Aurangabad, in S.C.C. No. 9766 of 2018, thereby acquitting the accused-respondents herein and dismissing the complaint for non prosecution. 2. Learned advocate for the appellant pointed out that the appellant’s excavator (pock-lain of Tata Hitache – 210 Model) machine was given to use on rent basis to the respondents. However, respondent No.2, who is proprietor of respondent No.1 firm, did not pay that amount of rent for use of that excavator machine. The respondent No.2 issued cheque of an amount of Rs.11,65,000/- in favour of the appellant. However, on presentation of the said cheques by the appellant in his bank account, it were 2025:BHC-AUG:1094 crapl767.24 -2- dishonoured. 3. After following due process of law, the appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, bearing S.C.C. No. 9766 of 2018 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad. Learned advocate for the appellants further pointed out that the appellant is agriculturist and the scheduled date fixed for hearing of the complaint was not communicated to him. Therefore, the appellant could not remain present before the court. It is therefore, prayed to allow the appeal in the interest of justice by setting aside the impugned order. 4. The point emerged for consideration is as follows:- I) Is the impugned order of dismissal of complaint illegal and requires interference? 5. Perused the complaint and the impugned order. 6. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that it is not a well reasoned order. The order does not reflect that the complainant consistently remained absent for hearing of the complaint. It appears that the complainant has filed an affidavit in support of his complaint. In such case, it was obligatory on the part of the Court to crapl767.24 -3- proceed further with the case and to secure the presence of the accused. It is not that the accused was present and complainant was absent. Thus, prima facie, it appears that impugned order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.10, Aurangabad, is not legal and sustainable. 7. The reasons are soul of the order. The learned Magistrate has failed to follow the basic principles of parting of justice that convincing reasons must be stated and cryptic order shall not be passed. The reasons based decision is necessary. The convincing and cogent reasons must be given as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi and others vs. State of U.P. and others; (1991) SCC 212. The impugned order is not legal and correct, it requires interference. 8. Considering all these aspects, the appeal deserves to be allowed, impugned order deserves to be set aside and the complaint deserves to be restored to its original stage. Hence, the following order:- O R D E R I. The Criminal appeal is allowed. crapl767.24 -4- II. The impugned order dated 01.01.2024 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.10, Aurangabad, in S.C.C. No. 9766 of 2018, is quashed and set aside. III. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, to whom the S.C.C. No. 9766 of 2018 is allotted, is directed to proceed with the complaint and decide it on merits, after giving an opportunity to adduce the evidence in support of their case to both the sides, as early as possible and in any case, within a period of six months from today. (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) rlj/