BALVINDER PAL SINGH Vs. VINOD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 31st January, 2005 which reads as under:- ?Balvinder Pal Singh ... Complainant Vs. Vinod Singh, Accused ...Respondent ORDER: 31.1.2005 Present: Counsel for the complainant. Counsel for the accused with accused on bail. Today also the counsel for the complainant appears at 12.15 and files an app. for exemption. In view of my previous order, the same stands dismissed. The complaint is dismissed for non-prosecution there being no pre-charge evidence on record. File be consigned to R.R. Sd/- MM Delhi

(2.) It is submitted by the appellant that on 31.1.2005 the wife of the appellant was not well, therefore, he had to go to Amritsar and he instructed his counsel to move an application for exemption of his appearance. Accordingly, on 31.1.2005 the Counsel for the appellant moved an application for exemption of the appellant. However, the learned MM rejected the said application and dismissed the complaint of the appellant on the ground of non prosecution. The appeal is filed on the ground that appellant had been regularly appearing and sincerely prosecuting his complaint with due diligence. The non-appearance of the appellant on 31.1.2005 was not deliberate but the appellant had to go to Amritsar to take care of his wife who was ill. The learned MM failed to appreciate that a substantial amount of money was involved and dismissal of complaint would affect the financial stability of the appellant.

(3.) The appeal is opposed by the respondent on the ground that the appellant has not come with clean hands and he has been adopting tactics of harassing the respondent. He did not lead evidence before the Court despite opportunities and Court granted him last opportunity for leading evidence on 31.1.2005. Despite granting him last opportunity, the appellant did not produce the evidence. It is submitted that no specific illness of the wife has been stated. The medical certificate which has been filed before this Court also does not show that wife was suffering from any serious illness. The appellant has only produced an OPD prescription from a private medical practitioner and the date of medical prescription is 27.1.2005. Even if the appellant had to go to Amritsar before 27.1.2005 he could have come back to the court on 31.1.2005. Wife of the appellant was only given a hard bed rest and it was not necessary that appellant should have remained in Amritsar. The appellant was resident of Delhi and Medical Certificate was of Amritsar.