HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc Application No. 749 of 2017 12th August, 2025 Anuj Kumar -Applicant Versus Neetu Kumar -Respondent Presence:- Mr. Bilal Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicant. None is present for the respondent. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. This criminal misc. application has been filed by the applicant for setting-aside the order dated 18.02.2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate Laksar, District Haridwar in Complaint Case No. 76 of 2016, Anuj Kumar Vs. Neetu Kumar, under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 2. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are as hereunder:- That, in the year 2015, applicant filed a complaint case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the respondent before the Court of learned ACJM, Laksar, District Haridwar; that learned ACJM on 01.04.2015 passed summoning order dated 1 10.04.2015; that thereafter respondent was enlarged on bail by the Magistrate concerned in this case and further proceedins of case were started; that thereafter in the year 2016, the complaint case was transferred to some other Judicial Magistrate with a new complaint case number; that 18.02.2017 was the date fixed before the Magistrate concerned for evidence under Section 254 Cr.P.C., but, due to illness, applicant could not appear before the court, as a result of which, complaint case filed by the applicant was dismissed by Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 18.02.2017 due to his absence. Aggrieved by this order, applicant has filed the present criminal misc. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that applicant was suffering from serious disease and for that reason he was taking regular treatment from doctor since the year 2014 and on 18.02.2017, condition of the applicant was very serious and he was referred to AIIMS Hosipital, Rishikesh; that this fact could not be communicated to applicant’s counsel and thus the 2 counsel could not file adjournment application before the court concerned. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Perusal of the medical report filed by the applicant would reveal that he was suffering from seizure, and, it was not such a disease on ground of which, the applicant was unable to approach before the court of Judicial Magistrate for three long years. 6. Perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate reveals that the learned Magistrate, after considering and discussing all relevant aspects, has rightly dismissed the complaint case filed by the applicant. Thus, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. 7. Accordingly, the criminal misc. application fails and is hereby dismissed. (Alok Mahra, J.) 12.08.2025 Ujjwal 3