MANJU BHATTACHARJEE Vs. DR. REBATI KUMAR DEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. A.R. Banerjee, learned counsel for the complainant/ petitioner. None appears for the opposite party.

(2.) IN this revision petition the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 4.1.1994 and 25.1.1994 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi thereby rejecting the prayer of the petitioner -complainant for ordering personal appearance of the opposite party -accused who was represented in the trial by his Advocate. A complaint was filed by the present petitioner which was registered as Complaint Case No. 1347/ 92 against the opposite party alleging that the opposite Party with the help of 10/12 persons on 29.3.1992 had trespassed and encroached upon the land on the northern bank of her pond, running from East to West forcibly digging out a drain and had constructed a pucca wall thereon. On objection being raised by the husband of the complainant -petitioner the accused O. P. threatened him to assault. The learned trial court took cognizance of the offence under Section 447/427 IPC and on process being served on the opposite party, he submitted an application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. to allow him to be represented by his Lawyer. The prayer was eventually allowed subject to the condition that the accused O.P. would be required to appear before the court as and when ordered. The recording of evidence of the witnesses started thereafter. At this stage a prayer was made on behalf of the complainant -petitioner for personal appearance of the accused O. P. for his identification by the witnesses. The prayer was rejected by the order dated 4.1.1994. A similar prayer was also rejected again on 25.1.1994. The complainant -petitioner, therefore has approached this court, being aggrieved.

(3.) I have carefully examined the contents of the complaint petition and the deposition of the complainant and her witnesses till this stage of trial. I have also considered the reasons set out by the learned trial court in support of the rejection of the prayer for personal appearance of the accused/opposite Party and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not consider that in passing the impugned orders the learned trial court below has committed any error of jurisdiction or that the impugned order suffers from any illegality calling for Interference by this court. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders. It is, however, made clear that this order would not come in the way of the petitioner -complainant to renew her prayer for personal appearance of the opposite Party -accused at a later stage of the trial and if the same is done, the learned court below would consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.