SHIV PAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought the relief for setting aside the order dated 29 -12 -2003 passed by Sessions Judge Haridwar in Criminal Revision No. 303 of 2003, dismissing the same, and the order dated 2.4.2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, in Crl. Case No. 698 of 2002, U/Ss 406, 420, 467, 468 I.P.C. whereby the application of the petitioner filed U/S 311 Cr.P.C. was rejected. The facts of the case, in short, according to the petition, are that the petition has filed a criminal complaint case U/Ss 406, 420, 467, 468 I.P.C. against the respondents 4 to 6. The learned Magistrate after taking evidence U/Ss 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. summon the respondents 4 to 6. The accused/respondents appeared before the court. Thereafter, charges were framed against them U/Ss 406, 420, 467, 468 I.P.C. On 11.4.2002 the learned Magistrate closed the evidence of the complainant U/S 246 Cr.P.C. due to his remaining absent from the Court. Thereafter, the complainant/ petitioner moved an application U/S 311 Cr.P.C. to provide his opportunity to produce his remaining evidence U/S 246 Cr.P.C. which was rejected by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 2.5.2002. Thereafter, the complainant/petitioner preferred revision before the Sessions Judge, Haridwar, which was also dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 14.11.2002. Again the petitioner moved application U/S 311 Cr.P.C. The same was also rejected by the trial court. Feeling aggrieved the complainant preferred revision before the Sessions Judge, who vide impugned order dated 29.12.2003, dismissed the same also.

(2.) THE petitioner has filed the petition on the ground that the impugned orders were passed in an arbitrary manner without applying judicial mind by the courts below. It has alleged that the trial court should not have closed the evidence of the complainant the same day without giving opportunity through summons or warrants to the petitioner and his witnesses.

(3.) PERUSAL of impugned order dated 2.4.2003, by which the application of the petitioner filed U/S 311 Cr.P.C. was rejected, shows that the evidence of the complainant/petitioner was already recorded U/S 244 Cr.P.C. and the complaint case was fixed on 15.12.2001 for evidence U/S 246 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, two opportunities were afforded to the complainant to adduce evidence but the complainant did not appear before the trial court and applications for his exemption were moved by his counsel. On 11.4.2002 neither the complainant appeared before the learned Magistrate nor any adjournment and exemption application was moved and the evidence of the complainant was closed and the case was fixed for statement of the accused persons U/S 313 Cr.P.C. The petitioner also filed application U/S 311 Cr.P.C. on 2.5.2002 which was rejected by the Magistrate the same day. Against the above order criminal revision No. 375/2002 was preferred before the Sessions Judge, Haridwar and that revision was dismissed as not pressed. Again on 2.4.2003 the petitioner filed another application U/S 311 Cr.P.C. before the trial court. The learned Magistrate has rejected this second application filed U/S 311 Cr.P.C. on the ground that sufficient opportunity was given to complainant to produce his evidence U/S 246 Cr.P.C. but the complainant has not cared to obey the court's order. It was also opined by the learned Magistrate that the revision preferred by the complainant against the rejection order passed on the first application U/S 311 Cr.P.C. has also been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge and there is no ground to recall the order whereby the evidence of the complainant was closed.