GUNARAMLILHARE Vs. SANTRAM VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the Code'), the petitioners have prayed for quashment of the order dated 4.2.2013 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, in Criminal Revision No. 59/12, affirming the order dated 19.7.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon, in Criminal Case No. 155/2010. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned and other documents.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that initially the petitioners have challenged the order dated 6.7.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, in Criminal Revision No. 43/2010 affirming the order dated 29.10.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon in Criminal Revision No. 155/2010, whereby in absence of complainant/respondent No. 1 the trial Court has adjourned the case and not dismissed the complaint under Section 256 of the Code, before this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 554/2011 and vide order dated 1.12.2011 co-ordinate Bench of this Court while remanding the case has directed the trial Court to pass appropriate orders as may be necessary to advance the cause of administration of criminal justice in exercise of discretionary powers, in a just and fair manner. In the light of aforesaid order the trial Court has declined to dismiss the complaint on the ground of non-appearance of respondent No. 1 on the initial date i.e. 29.10.2010 on the ground that even respondent No. 1 has shown the sufficient cause for his non-appearance, which has been affirmed by the revisional Court. Learned counsel further submits that it was obligatory upon the Court to dismiss the complaint on 29.10.2010 or after remanding the case in Cr.M.P. No. 554/2011, but by not dismissing the complaint the trial Court has committed illegality.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 opposes the petition and submits that although it was obligatory upon the Magistrate to dismiss the complaint, but it was not mandatory and in terms of Section 256 of the Code the Magistrate is competent to adjourn the hearing of the case for some reason he thinks it proper to adjourn.