ISHWAR SINGH SHARMA Vs. RAJEEV ANEJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned MM dated 1st June, 2007 which reads as under:-

(2.) In the grounds of appeal it is stated that the appellant could not appear before the Trail Court as he had to go to his native village at Haryana for some urgent work and there was no telephone facility in the village, so he could not inform in his counsel about his inability to appear in the Court. The Counsel for the appellant also could not appear before the Trial Court since he was busy in other matter in Tis Hazari and was under the impression that the appellant/complainant would be appearing in the Court. It is submitted that the Trial Court should have issued a notice to the appellant or should have adjourned the complaint and should not have dismissed it in a haste.

(3.) A perusal of the order sheet of the Trial Court would show that pre- summoning evidence in the complaint was tendered on 27th October, 2005 and the learned MM took cognizance of the offence on that date and issued summons and fixed the case for 29th November, 2005. Summons could not be served to the accused for 29th November, 2005 and order was made for fresh service for 8th February, 2006. On 8th February, 2006 non appeared for the complainant and a court notice was issued to the complainant for 13th December, 2006. On 13th December, 2006 the case was transferred to another MM who fixed the case for consideration on 1st June, 2007. In between complainant learned about transfer of the case and moved an application for service of summons of the accused which was taken up on 18th December, 2006 and the Court of MM ordered for service of summons on the accused on 18th December, 2006 returnable for 1st June, 2007. On 1st June, 2007 the complainant did not appear. The complainant had not given the nature of urgent work for which the complainant went to his village. The excuse taken by the complainant is quite vague. The court on earlier absence of the complainant did issue a court notice but it was the complainant who was to be vigil and diligent in prosecution of his complaint.