RAJU PRASAD SARMA Vs. HALADHAR SARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision has been filed challenging the order dated 16.12.2006 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati, whereby and whereunder the Complaint Case No. 1970 C/96 filed by the complainant has been dismissed for default.

(2.) I have heard Mr. G Baishya, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Sarma, learned Counsel for the respondent.

(3.) A complaint was filed by the petitioner in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, alleging commission of offences under Sections 403/420/424/477(A), IPC, by the respondents. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the case on 14.10.96 and issued necessary process against the respondent. During the course of the proceeding, the complainant along with other witnesses were examined by the learned Trial Court before framing of charges. The case was taken up on 16.08.2001 on which date, the learned Trial Court on the basis of the evidence and material on records was of the view that there is reasonable ground to believe that there are materials under Sections 406/424/477A, IPC, against the accused and accordingly, the case was fixed on 22.08.2001 for framing of charges and the respondent was directed to appear on that date. On 22.08.2001, the charges were framed against the accused. Challenging the said order, the respondent filed Criminal revision No. 23/2002 before this Court on 09.01.2002 which was admitted on 11.09.2002 staying further proceeding. The said revision petition was dismissed on withdrawal on 26.08.2005. Upon receipt of the records back from this Court, the learned Trial Court vide order dated 18.03.2006 directed to issue summon to the respondent fixing the case on 28.04.2006 for appearance of the complainant. In the meantime, the Presiding Officer of the learned Trial Court was transferred and the Court remained vacant for about 8 months. No summon was issued to the petitioner/complainant in terms of the order dated 18.03.2006. On 16.12,2006, after joining as successor the learned Trial Court, noted down that the accused is present through his learned Counsel, but the complainant is absent without steps, and the complainant is also stated to be absent on earlier dates without steps and accordingly, the complaint was dismissed for default recording that the complainant was not interested to proceed with the case further. Challenging the said order dated 16.12.2006, the complainant has filed this revision petition.