VINOD SINGH YADAV Vs. MAHILA RAMKALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Sec. 482 of CrPC has been filed against the order dtd. 5/11/2016 passed by the JMFC, Lahar, District Bhind in Criminal Case No.151/2016 by which the trial Court has taken cognizance against the applicant for offence under Sec. 323, 341, and 34 of IPC.

(2.) The necessary facts for disposal of the present application in short are that the respondent No.1 filed a complaint against the applicant and other co-accused persons for offence under Sec. 323, 294, 341, 354, 504, and 506 Part-II of IPC and under Sec. 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The allegations made against the applicant in the complaint were that on 8/4/2007 the complainant/respondent No.1 had gone to offer prayer in a temple and while she was coming back the applicant and other co-accused persons stopped the way of the complainant and co-accused Govind singh with an evil intention caught hold of her hand and insulted and humiliated her by calling her by her caste's name and the applicant as well as other co-accused persons started assaulting the complainant by fists and blows and co-accused Jagat singh assaulted on the chest of the complainant by the handle of the gun, as a result of which, she sustained injuries. It was further alleged that in order to insult the complainant in the public place, her blouse was torn because the complainant belongs to scheduled caste and she is a poor lady. The incident was witnessed by different witnesses and only because of their intervention she could be saved.

(3.) It appears from the record that on 9/4/2007 the complaint was filed and thereafter a report was called from the police and the statements of the complainant and her witnesses were recorded under Sec. 200 and 202 of CrPC and the case was fixed for arguments on registration of complaint. The matter kept lingering on for more than nine years and from the order sheets it is clear that the case was fixed for arguments on the question of registration of the complaint for the first time on 20/8/2014 and from thereafter, the counsel for the respondents on one pretext or other sought time to argue on the question of registration of the complaint. Consequently, by order dtd. 14/3/2016 the trial Magistrate dismissed the complaint for want of prosecution, as neither the complainant nor her counsel was present. From the record, it is clear that after the complaint was dismissed, the order was signed by the Presiding Officer also. Thereafter, it appears that the counsel for the complainant appeared and made an oral prayer for grant of further time to advance arguments on the question of registration of the complaint and the trial Court without passing any specific order for restoration of the complaint accepted the reasons given by the counsel for the complainant for his non-appearance and adjourned the case for advancing arguments on the question of registration/taking of cognizance.