SHIV KUMAR Vs. LAJWANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant revision petition is directed against the orders dated 9.12.1998 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad vide which the complaint filed by the petitioner under section 420 IPC has been dismissed for non-prosecution and the respondent has been discharged.

(2.) THE order dated 27.3.2003 reveals that both the parties were referred to the Lok Adalat for settlement. Ultimately, the present revision petition was admitted by this Court on 18.9.2003. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent. However, Mr. P.K. Mutneja has rendered assistance to this Court on behalf of the petitioner in disposing of the present revision petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the impugned order which is on page No. 11 of the paper book and submitted that the learned Magistrate has erroneously jumped to the conclusion that the petitioner intentionally absented himself and was not interested in pursuing the complaint whereas the petitioner was pursuing the complaint sincerely for the last eight years but for the reason that he could not appear on 2/3 dates on account of his ailment. It is then submitted that the learned Magistrate was even otherwise not justified in discharging the respondent without recording the finding that the presence of the petitioner (complainant) on the said date was in fact necessary. According to the learned counsel, the evidence was already concluded and the matter was fixed for arguments and in this eventuality the learned trial court instead of discharging the accused on account of absence of the petitioner and dismissing the complaint for non- prosecution could very well decide the case on merits on the point of charge especially when the counsel for the complainant was present in the court and had even moved an application for exemption of personal appearance of the complainant. The impugned order is, thus, liable to be set aside, the learned counsel so contends.