RAM NATH MAHLAWAT Vs. BIHARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under S.482, Cr. P.C. filed by the complainant-petitioner, seeking the quashment of the order dated 8-1-1990 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, dismissing the criminal complaint filed by the complainant-petitioner under Ss. 499/500, I.P.C. and also seeking the quashment of the order dated 9-8-1991, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, dismissing the revision-petition of the complainant-petitioner and upholding the order dated 8-1-1990 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the complainant-petitioner filed a complaint under Ss. 499/500, I.P.C. against the accused-respondents. After accused-respondents were summoned and had put in appearance and were on bail, no one had put in appearance on behalf of the complainant on 8-1-1990, whereupon the learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the criminal complaint and "discharged" the accused, vide order dated 8-1-1990. After the dismissal of the criminal complaint, the complainant had appeared before the learned Magistrate and had explained the circumstances under which he could not appear in the Court at the time when the complaint was dismissed by the learned Magistrate. However, the learned Magistrate, vide separate order dated 8-1-1990 showed his inability to do anything in this regard, observing that the order of dismissal had already been announced and the accused had already been discharged. Aggrieved against these orders of the learned Magistrate, the complainant-petitioner had filed the revision-petition before the Sessions Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing both sides and after perusing the record, vide order dated 9-8-1991, dismissed the revision-petition and up-held the order of the learned Magistrate. Aggrieved against these orders passed by the Courts below, the complainant-petitioner filed the present petition in this Court.

(3.) When the case came up before me on 27-9-2001, no one had put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner and at the request made on behalf of the counsel for the respondents, the case was adjourned to 16-10-2001 for arguments. On 16-10-2001, again no one had appeared on behalf of the petitioner and on request made on behalf of the counsel for the respondents, the case was adjourned to 9-11-2001 i.e. today, for arguments. Today again no one has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner.