RAJ KUMAR Vs. HARYANA FINANCIAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") has been filed assailing order dated 13.7.2012 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bhiwani whereby the revision petition preferred by the respondent was allowed and the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Charkhi Dadri was directed to proceed with Complaint No. 164 dated 12.7.2006 titled "Haryana Financial Corporation vs. Raj Kumar" under Section 42 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (for short "the Act") read with Sections 420, 467, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") (Annexure P-1).

(2.) The facts in brief are that the Haryana Financial Corporation (for short "HFC") filed a criminal complaint for the aforesaid offences against the petitioner. After conducting preliminary enquiry envisaged under the provisions of law, the petitioner (respondent/accused therein) was ordered to be summoned to face trial. When the case was fixed for procuring the presence of the petitioner, the complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution as neither a representative of the complainant nor its counsel put in appearance before the trial Magistrate on 18.11.2011. The order passed by the trial Magistrate was challenged in revision before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bhiwani and the Court after hearing counsel for the revisionist/complainant, set aside the order with direction to the concerned Judicial Magistrate to consider the material placed by the complainant before that Court and further consider whether the complainant was away to Jind and had to appear as witness in the Court at Jind and in case, the petitioner is able to establish the same, the Judicial Magistrate would proceed with the complaint as per law. Subsequent thereto, the complainant submitted an application before the trial Magistrate for restoration of the case which was allowed by the Court concerned and the matter was proceeded further after procuring presence of the petitioner.

(3.) The charge was framed on 28.10.2013 and the case was adjourned for recording evidence.