ASHWIN DHIRAJLAL THAKER Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dtd. 05/02/2019 passed in Criminal Case No.6252 of 2016 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur, Ahmedabad whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the original accused - respondents No.2 and 3 herein in exercise of powers under Sec. 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, present application seeking leave to appeal under Sec. 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code" for short) is preferred by the applicant- original complainant.

(2.) Briefly stated; it is the case of the applicant-original complainant that he had filed private criminal complaint under Ss. 406 , 420 , 467 , 468 , 471 , 477 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code against the private respondents that the respondents have sold certain parcel of land in consideration of Rs.1,25,00,000.00. It is alleged that accused nos.1 and 2 created one forged sale agreement and the applicant has filed Civil Suit No.320 of 2013 and also registered lis pendens on 26/07/2013. Thus, the applicant-original complainant filed the aforesaid private criminal complaint for creating forged document.

(3.) Upon lodgment of the private complaint, a complaint came to be registered and summons to the accused was also issued. Thereafter, the Court ordered inquiry under Sec. 202 of the Code. Since the offences were warrant triable, the Court posted the matter for recording of evidence to frame the charge. Despite the matter was posted on various occasions, the applicant-original complainant did not remain present. It appears that the applicant-original complainant was also imposed with costs on two different occasions so that the applicant-original complainant appears and proceeds with the matter. It appears that after giving sufficient opportunity and also by imposing costs of Rs.1,000.00 and Rs.2,500.00 respectively, the complainant did not appear before the Court so also his Advocate. Having regard to the conduct of the applicant and despite imposition of costs on two occasions, the learned trial Court though it fit to dismiss the complaint in exercise of its powers under Sec. 256 of the Code (it is mistakenly typed as Sec. 156 in the impugned order).