Allowed

Jai Kumar v. Billu Verma & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Mar 2014CRM-M/37214/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petitioner's revision under Section 482 CrPC, setting aside orders dismissing his complaint for non-appearance. It restored the complaint and directed his appearance, warning that failure to appear would result in dismissal.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; complaint restored to original stage; petitioner directed to appear before trial Magistrate on 25.3.2014.

Jai Kumar Vs Billu Verma & Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2014) — LawSathi Research

¶1

�� 

¶2

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh

¶3

��

¶4

��

¶5

Jai Kumar ..Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Billu Verma and others

¶8

..Respondents

¶9

Coram: �� !��"�#��$��"�!"��

¶10

Present: Mr.Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

¶12

��"�#��$��"�!"��%� �&'��(

¶13

Heard.

¶14

The petitioner had filed Criminal Complaint No. 75 of 2012 which was dismissed in default by Judicial Magistrate Class11, Panipat, vide order dated 15.6.2012. Petitioner challenged said order by way of Criminal Revision No. 55 of 2012 which, after contest, has been dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, vide order dated 1.10.2013. Now to challenge both the orders dated 15.6.2012 and 1.10.2013, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Class11, Panipat and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, respectively, petitioner has approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶15

On going through the record, it comes out that the petitioner (complainant before the trial Court) did not appear before

¶16

Kant Nirmal 2014.03.20 19:24 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh

¶17

�� 

¶18

the trial Court on 18.4.2012 and notice was issued to him for 9.6.2012. However, on that date also, the petitioner did not appear and the matter was adjourned to 15.6.2012, but the petitioner chose not to appear even on that date.

¶19

The plea of the petitioner is that he had noted a wrong date and even his counsel did not intimate him the actual date of hearing before the trial Court and for that reason, he could not appear on the aforesaid dates.

¶20

Be that as it may, on 18.4.2012 and the dates subsequent thereto, no substantial proceedings were to be undertaken by the trial Magistrate as the matter was fixed for appearance of the accused only. That being so, non1appearance of the petitioner cannot be said to have caused any prejudice to the proceedings before the trial Court. Even otherwise, the trial Court was required to consider as to how presence of the petitioner was necessary and why the matter could not be adjourned to a future date so as to enable the petitioner to put in appearance. These facts coupled with the plea put up on behalf of the petitioner render the order dated 15.6.2012 passed by the learned trial Magistrate and dated 1.10.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, unsustainable.

¶21

In these circumstances, the petition is accepted, orders under challenge are set aside and the complaint is restored to its original number and stage. The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned trial Magistrate at 10 A.M. on 25.3.2014.

¶22

It is made clear to the petitioner through his counsel that

¶23

Kant Nirmal 2014.03.20 19:24 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh

¶24

�

¶25

��

¶26

in the event of his non1appearance before the trial Court on the aforesaid date and time, this petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed.

¶27

March 19,2014 nk

¶28

(MAHAVIR S.CHAUHAN) �� JUDGE

¶29

Kant Nirmal 2014.03.20 19:24 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh

Jai Kumar v. Billu Verma & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Kumar v. Billu Verma & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Sukhwinder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Baljinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Prem Chand Vs State of Punjab

Sukhbir & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Kulwinder Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Sandeep Kumar and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others