VIRENDRA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision, a very short question is involved for consideration. In the trial pending against respondents 2 to 4, the petitioner is the complainant. It is pending for the commission of the offence under section 307 I.P.C.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution version itself, the injured complainant was initially examined by a doctor at Vidisha but was later referred to Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal, where he was examined and treated by Dr. Rathore. At the trial when the prosecution did not produce Dr. Rathore, the Court proceeded to close the evidence. But a prayer was made by the complainant that an opportunity be allowed to the complainant for summoning Dr. Rathore at his risk. The learned trial Court had allowed that prayer and the petitioner succeeded in seeking the service of summon on Dr. Rathore but on 14.8.91 when the case was taken up by the trial Court, Dr. Rathore failed to appear in the Court despite service, as has been observed by the trial Court in its order -sheet of that date. The learned trial Court instead of proceeding against the witness for his non -appearance in the Court despite service, and to adopt a coercive method, closed the case directing the trial to be listed on 30.8.91 for the examination of the accused persons. As against that order, the present revision petition has been filed by the complainant -petitioner.