VIJAY KUMAR BANSAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was initially filed as a writ Petition and by order dated 6/12/2001, Registry was directed to register it as Criminal Misc.(Main). Thereafter the matter was listed before this Court. By this petition, petitioner is seeking quashing of order dated 1 9/11/1999 passed by the Court of Shri R.K.Qauba, CMM, Delhi declining the prayer of the petitioner to dismiss the complaint on account of absence of the complainant Shri S.N.Dhingra, Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Delhi, under Section 256 Cr.P.C.

(2.) Facts in brief are that a civil suit was listed for hearing before the Court of Shri S.N.Dhingra, Addl.District Judge; statement of DW-1 was being recorded; in the course of cross-examination, petitioner alleged to have raised slogans in the Court, at a high pitch against the Presiding Officer; his conduct was noticed in the deposition sheet and the accused was taken in custody under directions of Addl.District Judge. Learned court after enquiry concluded that the petitioner had deliberately misconducted himself in such manner with intention to stall the proceedings, create a scene in the court, thereby to cause hindrance in the proceedings and to insult/humiliate the Presiding Officer. Consequently a complaint under Section 228 IPC was filed against the petitioner; cognizance was taken on 23/10/1998. The petitioner was released on bail; and notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was framed against him. The case was listed for prosecution evidence. At this stage, petitioner moved an application stating that since it is a complaint case, that there is no order for grant of exemption of the complainant, therefore, the complaint deserved to be dismissed under Section 256 Cr.P.C. and the petitioner is entitled to be acquitted. He further raised a plea that the non-following of the procedure prescribed under Sections 195, 340, 395, 440 Cr.P.C. complaint is liable to be dismissed. Learned trial court vide impugned order dated 19/11/1999 declined the prayer observing:-

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel repeated the submissions that the procedure has to be the same for all summons trial cases as the complainant was absent, the complaint ought to have been dismissed under Section 256 Cr.P.C. There was no other choice. Reliance was placed upon the Supreme Court decisions reported in Sugarbai M.Siddiq & ors. v. Ramesh S.Hankare (D) by Lrs., 2001 (7) Supreme 337, Paramananda Mohapatra v. The State, AIR 1968 Orissa 144 (V 55 C 41), and State v. Reva Chand, AIR 1961 Allahabad 352. Learned APP for State argued to the contrary.