RANA AHMED Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S. Deb, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S. A. Sheikh, learned GA appearing for the State-respondent No.1. None appears for the respondent No.2 despite service of due notice.

(2.) The brief fact of the case is that an FIR dtd. 2/5/2022 was lodged by the respondent No.2 against the petitioner and another before the Borsora Police Outpost alleging non-payment of the amount agreed in the agreement dtd. 3/1/2022 which was executed pursuant to a road accident on the same day at Bagli village, South West Khasi Hills. Subsequently, the said FIR was registered as Nonghyllam P.S. Case No. 7 (5) 2022 under Sec. 279/427 IPC and the matter was investigated into. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet dtd. 30/9/2022 was filed by the police against the petitioner u/S 417 IPC r/w Sec. 180/192/192A/196/190 of the Motor Vehicle Act. By the same charge-sheet, another person namely Shri Saulus D Sangma was also charge-sheeted u/S 279/427 IPC r/w Sec. 181 MV Act. The petitioner, thereafter, was made to face trial in G.R. Case No. 17/2022 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mawkyrwat. It appears from the record that when the case was pending for final hearing, due to continuous non-appearance of the defence counsel, the learned Trial Court by impugned order dtd. 4/2/2025 fixed the matter on 26/2/2025 for pronouncement of final judgment without hearing the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dtd. 4/2/2025, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this criminal petition.

(3.) Mr. S. Deb, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court was utterly wrong in passing the impugned order without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to defend his case before the Trial Court. The learned Counsel submits that the petitioner's right to be heard and defended in a criminal trial is a constitutional right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the same cannot be interfered with even if there is a default on the part of the defence counsel. In addition, he contends that even on merits, there is no case against the petitioner as he was never a part of the agreement allegedly executed between the parties involved in the road accident dtd. 3/1/2022. He further submits that the respondent No.2, had no locus standi to lodge the FIR in question having no interest involved in the matter. The learned Counsel contends that the respondent No.2 is only a witness to the alleged agreement dtd. 3/1/2022 and, in such a situation, the Investigating Authority could not have registered the case against the petitioner and proceeded to investigate the same. The learned Counsel places reliance on a decision of the High Court of Jharkhand dtd. 17/8/2021 passed in Cr. Revision No. 468 of 2012 and submits that even if there was no appearance of the defence counsel, the Trial Court ought to have appointed an amicus or a Legal Aid Counsel on behalf of the petitioner for disposal of the case. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order dtd. 4/2/2025 and the entire proceeding of G.R. Case No. 17/2022 cannot be sustained in law and liable to be quashed.