ASHRAF KHAN Vs. MOHAN KUMAR GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present revision petition, the petitioner assails the judgment dtd. 21/3/2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ferozepur Jhirka (District Mewat) vide which the complaint filed by the petitioner under Ss. 228, 323, 342, 352, 500, 506, 120-B IPC read with Sec. 345 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

(2.) The facts, briefly put, are that the present petitioner was an accused in a complaint filed by one Kirpal Singh under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the NI Act'). The said complaint was fixed for defence evidence and on 4/12/2014, one witness namely Abdul Salam was present. He tendered his affidavit in his examination in chief. However, as per the petitioner, the counsel for the complainant namely Mohan Kumar Goyal, Advocate (respondent No.l) intentionally did not appear to cross examine the witness on the pretext that he was ill. When the witness Abdul Salam came outside the Court premises after the case had been adjourned to 17/12/2014, respondent No.l called the said witness and threatened him asking him not to depose in favour of the present petitioner. Under the circumstances, Abdul Salam did not appear before the Court on 17/12/2014. The case was adjourned to 15/1/2015 but the witness again refused to accompany the petitioner. He even swore an affidavit dtd. 14/1/2015 stating that he was unable to accompany the petitioner because of the threats having been extended by respondent No.l. On 15/1/2015, when the affidavit was presented before the Court, the brother of respondent No.l Manoj Kumar Goyal, Advocate (respondent No.2) snatched the affidavit from the petitioner and tore it. The matter was noticed by the Presiding Officer in his order also. The petitioner had to be escorted out of the Court Complex by the gunman of the Presiding Officer. Under the circumstances, a complaint was filed by the petitioner under Ss. 228, 323, 342, 352, 500, 506, 120-B IPC read with Sec. 345 Cr.P.C. with the aforementioned facts/allegations.

(3.) The trial Court did not forward the complaint for registration of FIR as per the provisions of Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C. and declined the said prayer vide order dtd. 7/8/2015. Accordingly, three witnesses were examined by the complainant in his preliminary evidence. These witnesses were Abdul Salam (the witness who had to appear in the complaint under Sec. 138 of the NI Act), the petitioner himself and one Asgar. Certain documents were also marked as Mark-A to Mark-F. After considering the preliminary evidence, the complaint was dismissed by the trial Court leading to the filing of the present revision petition.